Talk:Tier list/Archive 6

current talk page

Archives

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

Simplified version of the below: 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; that's for the forums.

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 (for Melee and Brawl) 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 a debate on the existence or ordering of tiers. Those should both be addressed in the Forums (Forum for Brawl, forum for Melee).

new SSB64 tier list

I would like it if smash back room would update it. ..... The secret number well? 22:49, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd love to see that happen too, but that's ever gonna happen...Melee was lucky to get its latest tier list, and no one plays 64 competitively anymore. :/ ReiDemon 22:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Did you read the tl;dr? Blindcolours TONDA GOSSA. 23:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

No, it was somewhat a legitimate question: Asking if the SSB64 tier list will be updated. Still, I'm not sure whether it fulfills SW:TALK. In any case, I'll answer. Smash 64 has been out for more than a decade, and its metagame has been pretty well solved through years of Isai dominating with Pikachu, Fox, and Kirby, with his Pikachu in particular being virtually undefeated. In addition, the game is simple enough so that it has been possible to figure out who is the best at KOing, recovering, etc. That doesn't mean there won't be another tier list, just explaining why updates are rare. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Kinda offensive...

I think we should delete the first two sentences about the controversy. It's not neutral. Here are the sentences: "It is a common misconception among new players, and even some experienced players, that all the characters in the series are equal. It is thought amongst them that the strengths and weaknesses of characters balances them out."

I'm anti-tier, and I find this quite offensive. ForgingIron (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

It may not be neutral, but it is true. Characters are attempted to be balanced out, but that is impossible in most fighting games. MegaTron1XD 18:35, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

The sentence is true, just honestly tell us how Kirby is equal to Jigglypuff in Melee, or how Ganondorf is equal to Snake in Brawl (in both cases, the latter character is better than the former in nearly every way, doing what they can do, and so much more).

Also, we don't care you're "anti-tier" and find this "offensive", we report facts on this Wiki, and it is fact it is impossible to perfectly balance a game with such diversity. Omega Tyrant 19:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Note that the precence of certain clones such as Jigglypuff and Luigi in SSB64 and Pichu in Melee, who very much appear to be intentionally worse than their originals, is certainly a counterexample against the claim that the games was meant to be 100% balanced. Mr. Anontalk 20:38, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I wouldn't say Luigi was ever designed to be worse than Mario. Jigglypuff (SSB) and Pichu are arguable, but remember that the series isn't designed for just two-player matches with no items - as possibly suggested on one of Pichu's trophies, they were designed to be played with more importance on letting the other opponents duke it out while poking in and out with needling attacks and items. That's not being intentionally underpowered, that's being designed with strengths that tournament conditions deny. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 23:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I wouldn't call being designed to have to rely on random items to be a strength, but an intentional underpowering. It's not like Pichu was designed to be more capable at wielding items than other characters. Omega Tyrant 23:36, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm not in favor of deleting the lines, but I would like to suggest a change of the word 'misconception'. In the wikipedia article about neutrality, it says to 'Prefer Non-Judgemental Language.' The word 'misconception' assumes that the anti-tiers' view is incorrect. This is not neutral for an article. I apologize for lacking knowledge on linking to other websites, but for reference, here is the link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV Just as a footnote, I am in favor of tiers. Yiran (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2012 (EST)

It is fact that characters aren't perfectly balanced, and anyone who says otherwise is pretty much delusional :/ Omega Tyrant 10:05, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Well, I believe it is a fact, but a notable amount of smashers (or it wouldn't be noted in the article) disagree with us and the other notable portion of smashers. Yiran (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (EST)

To give an example: If a large amount of people say Sonic is unlockable in Melee, do we go ahead and suggest the possibility that they may be correct, even though it's a clear fact Sonic does not exist in Melee?

Likewise, it's a clear fact characters aren't perfectly balanced. You compare characters side by side, and you'll see that Melee Kirby is completely outclassed by Melee Jigglypuff in nearly every way, likewise for Brawl Ganondorf and Snake. Trying to say that those characters are equal would either be a severe lack of knowledge of the game, or delusion.

It's really not a matter of if you "believe" in tiers anymore, rather than a matter of acceptance. Until someone comes along that can provide a coherent, rational, and irrefutable argument that supports tiers don't exist and characters are perfectly balanced, this Wiki will not suggest in any way that "anti-tiers" may be right. Omega Tyrant 11:21, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Fair enough. Yiran (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (EST)

It's not a matter of right and wrong. The section is just ill-written and biased. All you really need to say is some believe in tiers, here is why, and some don't (and here is why). If you want to say something like the general community has come to the conclusion that tiers DO exist, that's fine, as long as you have a source to back it up. Otherwise, this really does need to get changed. Smashbrother101 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (EST)

When the so-called "anti-tiers" can come up with a rational and coherent argument, and stop looking a bunch of deluded asses, maybe then this suggestion can actually be taken seriously. It's not a matter of "believing" in tiers anymore, it's an objective fact they exist, and it has been shown to be the case countless times. The existence of a fringe deluded minority that wants to keep on shutting their ears and refusing to accept it does not mean we have to present their "view" as an equal consideration. If you're an "anti-tier" yourself, accept the facts, or refute this, as well as explain how Melee Kirby can possibly be equal to Melee Jigglypuff, and how Brawl Ganondorf can possibly be equal to Snake. Omega Tyrant 15:45, 28 January 2013 (EST)

I'm not anti-tier, and it's stupid of you to just assume so. I can see the existance of tiers (whether I think it really matters is another thing). As I pointed out before, there's no source to back it up. The first thing they teach you in BASIC High School English is to ALWAYS provide sources for your facts. My other suggestion (after plenty of thought), is to just cut the section entirely. It doesn't add any important information to the article (it barely is related to the article anyways), and as CLEARLY shown here, it has caused far too much controversy. The second option is ONCE again to use neutral language, because the diction used here is more styled towards a persuasive essay and is completely inappropriate for a Wiki page. I hope we all are willing to negotiate peacefully. Smashbrother101 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

"As I pointed out before, there's no source to back it up."

We have a "source", if you actually bothered to read this nice little article we have linked in that section. Besides that, there's common sense, logic, empirical results, and you know, the fact that it's accepted among all but a deluded fringe group that keeps diminishing in presence.

"It doesn't add any important information to the article (it barely is related to the article anyways)"

Yes, it does. It addresses the "tier war" controversy that was very prevalent in early competitive Smash, and it addresses how the anti-tier side was wrong. The article reports the tier lists, and other relevant information regarding their creation and reception.

"and as CLEARLY shown here, it has caused far too much controversy."

So we now have to cater to an easily offended fringe group that has all but disappeared outside a few very vocal people? No. The information here is factual, and "controversy" (especially when it's hardly prevalent anymore) is no reason to truncate the Wiki's content. Find something offensive because it contradicts your deluded beliefs? Grow a thicker hide or just accept you were wrong.

"The second option is ONCE again to use neutral language"

A second option that is also terrible, when it still truncates the facts and lends credence to a side that has only shown themselves to be deluded, and been completely proven wrong again and again. Like I said before, "anti-tier" wants to be presented as valid? They can come up with some new arguments that aren't refuted and countered by common sense.

Now if you're going to bring back up an argument that has been resolved months ago, try harder, and stop using ALL CAPS when shouting doesn't make your point any clearer. Omega Tyrant 14:46, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Hey Omega, I am willing to take on 3 level 9 Snakes with Ganondorf, your tier list just like you examples are pointless -Alucard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucard (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Do we really have to make it that obvious that using CP players invalidates the concept? Toomai Glittershine The Trumpeteer 23:22, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Oh hey, you can beat up cpus, good for you. You certainly have realised by now that level nine cpus are as good as a mediocre casual at best? And severely underutilise every character? Besides what Toomai said, you just strawmanned what I said. Perhaps read it fully and respond to what I actually said? Also sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Omega Tyrant 23:35, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Wow I got 2 Moderators mad at me, well in order first Omega, quit being such a prick,the "deluded asses" as you call people who are against tiers have made valid points but you "deluded asses" think that any argument like the following "people play differently therefore the tier list does not exist because if the tier list was truly accurate and able to decide what the likely out come of the match will be, but it doesn't, it will never be accurate or even effective at deciding the utility and of each character" is stupid because it does not agree with you, you and every person who believes that the tier list is effective are deluded especially since any argument that any of you people can come up with is basically "we Think that the tier list is accurate and therefore any other argument is wrong", I can understand that you are set in your ways but stop pretending that you are right.

This is for you Toomai, I know CPUs are easy, I just rarely use Ganondorf, so why say I can beat anything but computers with him when I can't,so yeah.....Alucard --Nothing I shoot ever gets back up again 16:24, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm not mad at you. But posts like the one you just made, where as far as I can tell you imply that pro-tier people are ignorant of anti-tier peoples' arguments, do not help anybody. If you agree that people are set in their ways then arguing is a waste of both sides' time. Toomai Glittershine The Glow 17:18, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

"quit being such a prick,the "deluded asses" as you call people who are against tiers have made valid points"

Did you even read the treatise we have that fully explains how each anti-tier argument is bullshit? Come up with some new arguments that don't go against all common sense and logic, while not being so grossly defensive and stubborn, and maybe then you won't come off as an deluded ass.

"but you "deluded asses""

Ah nice, you're at a fifth grade level and can blindly spit back insults. You're looking really smart.

"people play differently"

If you're referring to ultra casual play with all items on and all wacky stages with 99 minute coin matches, you do realise that the tier list is applicable to competitive play only. If you're referring to different styles of someone making Ganondorf equal to Snake, then go enter some tournaments, and so show how your "different style" with Ganondorf allows you to win tournaments just as well as Snake. If you are correct, you should prove us wrong, and Kirbys in Melee and Ganondorfs in Brawl should have had tournament success by now.

"if the tier list was truly accurate and able to decide what the likely out come of the match will be"

Read the damn treatise and the full article before making terrible illogical strawman arguments that have been refuted and refuted. Firstly, the tier list assumes highest level play with all players at equal skill. It additionally is a ranking of each character's competitive capabilities and how likely they are to do well in a tournament. The tier list is not used for individual matchups. You beating up your little brother's Meta Knight with Ganondorf proves nothing, as you are not at equal skill, nor are you the highest level of play. Beat Mew2King in tournament with Ganondorf, and then you could have some merit to your argument that Ganondorf is better than what everyone says.

"it will never be accurate or even effective at deciding the utility and of each character"

Look up tournament results kid, the best players of higher tier characters perform consistently better than the best players of lower tier characters. Here's the articles for Apex 2012, SKTAR, SRT, and Apex 2013, the most prestigious Brawl nationals in the past year and a half. Tell me how many Ganondorfs and other low tier characters you see high up, compared to the amount of Meta Knights and other high tier characters. These tier lists are certainly accurate in their intended function of ranking how competitively viable each character is.

"is stupid because it does not agree with you, you and every person who believes that the tier list is effective are deluded"

You really are just in fifth grade, huh? Surely you can come up with something better than blindly parroting what the other person said towards you? Do you even know what the word deluded means?

"especially since any argument that any of you people can come up with is basically "we Think that the tier list is accurate and therefore any other argument is wrong""

ANNNDDDDDD you show right here you never fucking read the treatise, or anything else we said. Alright here's the thing, if you post again, strawman and parrot the same old anti-tier arguments, clearly showing you haven't read the treatise, you will be blocked for disruption. If you're going to seriously argue for anti-tier, read the damn treatise, don't strawman us, and come up with some new anti-tier arguments that haven't been refuted a thousand times already.

"I can understand that you are set in your ways but stop pretending that you are right."

Lets see, anti-tier's arguments have been refuted countless times and they haven't brought up a legit counter-refute ever, logic proves you wrong, empirical results prove you wrong, common sense proves you wrong. As I said before, if tiers don't exist and every character is equal, explain to me how Kirby is equal to Jigglypuff in Melee, and how Ganondorf is equal to Snake in Brawl, when the latter character can do nearly everything the former can do and more, while being statistically superior in about every way.

"I know CPUs are easy, I just rarely use Ganondorf, so why say I can beat anything but computers with him when I can't,so yeah."

Then you shouldn't be bringing them up in a tier argument just like a retarded anti-tier kid does. And flat out admitting you couldn't do what you claim significantly undermines what you have to say.

Also, use some damn punctuation, that post of yours was nearly unreadable, and showing no care to your punctuation and grammar reflects on you extremely poorly, lessening your already horrid credibility ever farther. Omega Tyrant 18:26, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Ban me I really could not care less, I will go to a sight where they can show at least some signs of intelligence, so all in all fuck you, nice day you grammar Nazi have fun with hypocrisy, and proving another point of mine, oh by the way nice use of the word retarded you immature little fuck, it seems like every tier lover cannot defend their stance they can only attack the other side so suck it bitches (by the way this is pointed at Omega Tyrant, I at least have some respect for Toomai)--Nothing I shoot ever gets back up again 18:46, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

"I can't refute you so I'll just attack you". Enjoy your vacation troll. Omega Tyrant 19:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Icons

I think the icons for the tier lists should be remade. The current ones also show a part of a stage and sometimes the heads are a bit turned. We could use the character selection screen icons, for example. I can make screenshots of them, especially Brawl's. Is that a good idea?-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I would like to post an addition here:

The quality of the icons could be far better, and everything has to be at its best on SW. That's our goal. At least better than SmashWikia, who also uses that icons.-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

The current images used aren't difficult to identify, and in my opinion, they're more interesting to look at than the character select portraits. Omega Tyrant 12:27, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm in agreement with OT; the character select images by themselves would be pretty bland. : /

That said, I would suggest changing the icons to be larger, to the size of the Melee and 64 icons. Brawl icons look pretty small now that I think of it. ReiDemon 15:35, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I believe the reason the Brawl icons are of that size is because then they match the stage icons given by the game. So we'd have to redo all those as well. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 17:10, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

How do you make those icons anyway? ZeldasmashFile:ZeldaSymbol.pngTalk 19:56, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I think the descision has been made, but I'll oppose just in case. It's nice to see something more different, instead of just the normal artwork. ToastUltimatum Complaints Box 08:23, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

A note for anyone who may complain about the percieved lack of "neutrality"

A few people have complained about this article not being "neutral" to anti-tiers, and while the Wiki would normally try to present both sides to an issue as potentially valid, this is not the case here. For one, this issue is objective, tiers either exist or they don't, there's nothing but right or wrong to it, unlike the subjectiveness of what's the better game between Melee and Brawl. The Wiki is decidedly "pro-tier" and fully recognises that yes, characters aren't equal and tiers exist. We have a full treatise written out on why tiers exist and fully refutes the anti-tier argument. Additionally, the vast majority of players recognise characters aren't equal, including even casuals (while they may have horrible ideas about how good each character is, they still recognise the basic concept that characters aren't equal). Evidence, from comparing characters side by side and from tournament results, show that characters are far from anything resembling being equal. And it's just common sense; the chances of so many radically different characters with so many variables to them all adding up to be completely equal to each other is so miniscule as to be nonexistent, and the idea of that actually happening is completely ridiculous. Tiers exist, and doing anything but to fully state that it's the case is muddling the facts and disservicing the reader.

Although, it's not like we never gave the "anti-tiers" a chance. We have a neat and organised argument against them here, and we invited them to refute it and argue their case on its talk page. However, look at the treatise's talk page and its archives, as well as this talk page and its archives; you'll see why their position isn't treated with credence. Out of all the people who came on those talk pages to argue against tiers, only one person was reasonable, rational, didn't come off as over-aggressive/delusional/whiny/trollish, and actually presented some sort of argument that wasn't just a repeat of specific arguments already completely refuted in the treatise. Even then, this one rational anti-tier wasn't really arguing against the existence of tiers, but rather the concept of tier lists, and never responded back to Semicolon's thorough refute. So as you can see, when the anti-tier position has nothing backing them and are like this, can you really expect the Wiki to present their side as being anything but wrong?

As I also stated in this page before, I'll reiterate; it's not a matter of "believing in tiers" anymore but a matter of accepting them. Logic, evidence, and consensus, dictate the existence of tiers as an accepted fact. As such, the Wiki will present it fully as fact, and the existence of a fringe minority that does not accept it and cannot argue to save their lives does not mean we present their view as being possibly correct.

Now for any "anti-tiers" that wants to dispute this, do the following:

• Completely read this, maybe twice, and provide refutes for the arguments presented in it. Whatever you do, do not repeat the same exact arguments the treatise refutes. Doing so will greatly discredit you, remove any chance of users on the Wiki taking you seriously, and pretty much shows you didn't read the treatise or just ignored what was actually written in it.
• Stay reasonable, rational, and do not be over-aggressive, whine, or get trollish. The Wiki will give you a fair chance if you can appear as a reasonable and rational person.
• Fully and clearly answer my own test question regarding this: If tiers don't exist and every character is equal, how are Kirby and Jigglypuff possibly equal in Melee, and how are Ganondorf and Snake possibly equal in Brawl, when the latter character can pretty much do everything the former can better, as well as doing so much more and pretty much completely outclassing the former character in every relevant statistic?

Fulfill all three of those, while providing arguments that aren't easily refuted, and then you would have a legitimate case for the Wiki to present your side as anything but wrong.

TL;DR: Tiers are fact, the Wiki fully supports that fact and won't muddle it up to suggest otherwise, and if anti-tiers want us to treat their side as legitimate, they must provide logical and irrefutable arguments for once. Omega Tyrant 21:57, 31 January 2013 (EST)

A logical and irrefutable (I think) argument for once

My apologies if all this has been mentioned before, and if it has could you please point me to where it was awnsered and then just forget this whole thing.

I know all the arguments for pro-tiers. I know that on average, Meta Knight is going to beat Ganondorf. Just like he'll beat Zelda, LInk, Captain Falcon, etc. etc. but what are the situations that two players are EXACTLY equal? We also know that a good player will beat a bad one. And we know that a good Ganon will beat a bad Meta Knight. (I know this for a fact: when I played Omega Tyrant about 2 years ago I did'nt get more than 1 stock off every match in a 3-stock game with Meta Knight.) So, tier lists would really have a very small impact on the game, right? Since the Smash Community banned most luck-based things (items, big stages, staes with walls, Final Smashes, 3 or 4 player matches) we should have the better player win. The problem is that all the good, pro-drivin players look at the tier list and instantly choose Meta Knight.

This brings me to my second point: the changes we made. If final smashes were allowed, Ganon, Zelda and Link would be a lot better, while Meta Knight and Ice Climbers, not so much. Big stages would also help out the heavy hitters while hurting the small ones. Stages with walls would give Lucas and Ness huge boosts. And we all know how well Ike does in 4-player matches. It would also hurt Ice Climbers, Olimar, Falco, and most of all, Meta Knight.

My third point is the most effective anti-tier slogan yet. "All the good players look at the tier list, choose high-tiered characters, and get new strategies for them, reinforcing their position on the tier list." I know this is'nt anti-tier, but It makes sence considering the above two points. (I think this has been answered, but I forget where.)

My fourth point is about clones. Clones are slightly different than their origionals, and usually worse, but the still can do something good. For example, even though Falco's gun is better than Fox's, Fox can shoot faster, giving him a higher DPS. (This is also why I'm arguing only in Brawl terms: I don't think Kirby is in any way better than Jigglypuff in SSBM, so there are tiers there. I also know way more about Brawl than the other two, since I own Brawl and have only heard about Melee through guides by pro-tiers.)

My fifth point is about possibility. In Summoner Wars, the board game I stopped coming here for, there are around 100 possible cards in a 35 deck set. Add in Mercenaries (cards that you can add to any deck) the cards are over 150. With that many options, every card has 3 counters, pretty much nullifieng tier lists forever. It would be the same in Brawl if it were'nt for Meta Knight (see point 3), and he even has a even match with Pikachu, who could beat him more on average if point 2 were taken into effect.

My sixth point is about SSB4. All the things we could've done to stop tier lists in Brawl (points 1,2, and 5, and not doing point 3) could stop tier lists in SSB4. I seriously doubt it will work, givin the Prisoner's Dillemma, but we can try.

CONCLUSION: Tier lists would have such a miniscule effect it wouldn't matter if we would just play the game how it was meant to be played.

Thank you. Meta Ike 11:18, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Here's what i'm thinking

No, not all of the pros instantly chose MK. MK doesn't win every single tournament either, look at Apex 2013

Final Smashes, banned stages, 4-player matches outside of doubles, they're always banned/turned off in all tournaments. Yes, lower tiers could be better in casual matches. But the tier list is based on only competitive play, so that point doesn't mean anything.

And there are also some professionals that dedicate themselves to mastering low tiers. Vermanubis, Gimpyfish, Mekos, etc.

Clones have nothing to do with tier positions. There are some clones/semiclones that were obviously designed to be worse than the original (Jigglypuff in Smash 64, Pichu in Melee). But slight changes can really change their tier position, I heavily doubt Roy was designed to be worse than Marth, but his badly placed sweetspots are really bad for him.

While there are some pros who use low tiers (like I said before), it's just so hard for them to beat top players using high tiers because of their matchups being really bad. So a top low tier player would have trouble beating a top high tier player because the matchup is almost always in the high tier player's favour.

I think the only thing that would stop tier lists is giving characters customizable movesets, but I doubt that that will be added to SSB4.

Also what do you mean by "play the game how it's meant to be played"? Yes the developers play it with items and all stages, but tournaments are about skill, so the randomness is always going to be removed.

Anyway that's my take on this Scr7 11:38, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Here's what i'm thinking

No, not all of the pros instantly chose MK. [I never said that all pros use him, just most. And since most pros use him, he wins the most tournaments since most top pros use him.] MK doesn't win every single tournament either, look at Apex 2013 [This statement actually helps my case.]

Final Smashes, banned stages, 4-player matches outside of doubles, they're always banned/turned off in all tournaments. Yes, lower tiers could be better in casual matches. [And they are.] But the tier list is based on only competitive play, so that point doesn't mean anything. [It means that low tiers were made worse when those elements were removed in competitive play.]

And there are also some professionals that dedicate themselves to mastering low tiers. Vermanubis, Gimpyfish, Mekos, etc. [There are also pros dedicated to mastering high-tiers too.]

Clones have nothing to do with tier positions. [They are a character, so they obviously influence tier positions.] There are some clones/semiclones that were obviously designed to be worse than the original (Jigglypuff in Smash 64, Pichu in Melee). But slight changes can really change their tier position, I heavily doubt Roy was designed to be worse than Marth, but his badly placed sweetspots are really bad for him. [Roy, on the other hand, hits way harder. They all have advanteges and disadvanteges. I'm better with Roy than Marth, personally.]

While there are some pros who use low tiers (like I said before), it's just so hard for them to beat top players using high tiers because of their matchups being really bad [, or the fact that their character's metagames are underdeveloped since no one else uses them. Or the fact that they're fighting better players.] . So a top low tier player would have trouble beating a top high tier player because the matchup is almost always in the high tier player's favour [because of the tournament rules] .

I think the only thing that would stop tier lists is giving characters customizable movesets, but I doubt that that will be added to SSB4. [I think giving a counter to every fighter could work.

Also what do you mean by "play the game how it's meant to be played"? Yes the developers play it with items and all stages, but tournaments are about skill, so the randomness is always going to be removed. [I don't think randomness won't be removed, just that low-tiers would do better if it was.

Anyway that's my take on this Scr7 11:38, 28 June 2013 (EDT) the [ and ] added by Meta Ike 13:51, 28 June 2013 (EDT)