So I saw the latest SSBB tier list

[Kaoz]

Yeah, ruleset things came to mind as well. 95% of matches played on the "three most neutral" stages definitely caters to Olimar/IC/MK quite well. Then again, there's not a definitive "best" ruleset or tierlist and won't ever be. Obviously there will be bias with any tier list - after all, the good players are the ones who find the maximum potential of characters.

Still, some things like Olimar and Sheilda, along with Fox/Pit/Marth seem sorta dubious as always with the Japanese lists. I can't say for sure whether it's because of players or rules or playing style, but they don't seem to be in place with any reasoning. Then again I haven't heard of good Japanese Pikachus, which probably would hit that Fox down by quite a bunch. (and looking at Pika, he's below Kirby - that's probably the reason) It happens with things like fighting games - due to almost zero communication between the large scene of US where weird things are discovered and the very concentrated Japanese players with their different mindsets.

I've seen them play on Lylat before... or well, it's usually RAIN if anyone but yeah.... they have/had like 3 CP stages (at least in Kanto, not sure about Kansai).

Player wise you have these for the characters you mentioned:

Olimar - Nietono, Brood

(Zelda)/Sheik - Earth, Cross (though they really only use Sheik)

Fox - Yui(, Kalamity)

Pit - Masashi, Earth

Marth - Mikeneko(, Yuto)

Then you can't really CP Olimar anyone with RC and Brinstar gone for example, and as you guessed, Pikachu isn't used at all at a high level. If you want to consider playing style, I guess it could explain Sheilda since their execution is usually pretty on point and Sheilda is pretty good then.

I dunno, we'll see whether they'll update it after APEX and whether that changes anything.

[mmKALLL]

Of course they do CP (seldom, but it happens), but it's just not very often since "it breaks the concept of the better player always winning" somewhat or something I believe.

Also, the Marth players are definitely behind the top of EU/US.

[Junkhead]

I think Fox and Pit deserve their spots that high in the Japnese tier list. Although Fox is for sure, Pit has trouble getting kills. He still has a great projectile and excellent recovery. Fox has pretty great smash attacks, something Ive overlooked ever since the first Smash game.

[mmKALLL]

^Why do you think so? There are other characters who beat them up hard in tournaments after all, not to mention that Fox's smashes aren't the best while he still is ranked very high.

[marthfan1999]

^Why do you think so? There are other characters who beat them up hard in tournaments after all, not to mention that Fox's smashes aren't the best while he still is ranked very high.

Fox's Up-smash is goodlike. It saves him from alot. He gets early kills with it and it can be comboed from certain moves. F-smash is pretty situational and its usually not considered to be very safe. It's an okay smash attack to use as a mix-up. Even slightly overusing it will get you punished, the hard way. Down smash is great. It's fast and can be used to finish combos. The way how it sends ppl flying can also get you a surprise kill. It also works as an edgeguarder.

Okay, there's his smashes in a nutshell.

KALLL, the thing with Japan is, that their stagelist favour heavily characters like Fox, IC and Pit. But thats not the only reason for their placement. Have you noticed how terrible low Pikachu is on that list? Pikachu is the character who counters Fox harder than any other characters do. There doesn't seem to be any notable Pikachu players in Japan, thus leading to him not having any success. The success of a character is one of the most important factors to consider when making a tier list. I believe that one of the main reasons for Fox's high placement is the lack of good Pikachus countering him. Although ironically, IC is at 2nd spot. ICs also counter Fox. I would guess that 9Bs great success in West Japanese tournaments has led to ICs being at 2nd spot. Dunno how much it really matters, but learning Pikachu and the D-throw CG is easier than learning to play ICs and their CGs. Pikachu is still pretty hard tho. Trust me, I've gone into that shit.

[Junkhead]

^Why do you think so? There are other characters who beat them up hard in tournaments after all, not to mention that Fox's smashes aren't the best while he still is ranked very high.

Fox is a fast character that packs good Smash attacks. That is enough for me. I already stated my reasons for Pit in the same post.

By the way, not being the best is not a good reason to keep him from being that high. MKs Smashes suck, and look where hes at.

[mmKALLL]

Do you even read my posts? :)

"Then again I haven't heard of good Japanese Pikachus, which probably would hit that Fox down by quite a bunch. (and looking at Pika, he's below Kirby - that's probably the reason)"

I know that Fox's usmash is really great, thanks to this player called Jebu. You probably know everything about him as well :D

Edited January 6, 2012 by KALLLucas

[Junkhead]

I am sorry, but I did read that part. It's just that I get to understand it better now. Fox is a fast fast-faller and yeah.

Did you know Fox can Star KO DDD, the character with the most vertical KO resistance, as low as 117% with an uncharged Up-Smash.

[mmKALLL]

Only if it's fresh and no DI involved. Regardless, it's a great tool in Fox's arsenal, definitely one of his better "gimmicks."

I directed that reading part to marthfan1999, not you, sorry. (in fact, I didn't even notice your previous post before now due to 2nd page)

[Junkhead]

You aren't going to want to use you're strong Smash attack as a damage racker before the kill, though. It shouldn't stale. It reminds me of those crappy Wolf players that consantly repeat his F-Smash.

[mmKALLL]

That's why I noted it as a gimmick, but it's not truly so as it should be expected vs Fox.

Wolf's fsmash is pretty good for damage sometimes, his dsmash is the killer.

[I don't play for turns]

I never agree with tier lists... Still, different people are better/worse as different characters.

Ike+Pikachu should be higher, in my opinion. Pikachu's thunder always seems to be very cheap, (cheap good) and Ike is my best character. Also, Meta Knight is good, but I've never found him to be Godly.

Probably shouldn't be posting this, 'cos I always get into arguments. I'd be playing Sacred Stones, but I died

Edit: just saw Bowser+captain Falcn at bottom, and Diddy at the top. Dang, in every game I always very in opinion from the masses most people.

Edited May 20, 2012 by I don't play for turns

[dondon151]

why do you even bother posting that when your username screams "i'm a scrub"

[I don't play for turns]

why do you even bother posting that when your username screams "i'm a scrub"

I am a scrub, but you shouldn't assume that because of my name. What if I don't play for turns because I find it tedious and boring?

And I post because I feel like it. Besides, tier lists show the expert perspective. The n00b perspective should be shown as well.

[mmKALLL]

What.

Suggesting that the tier list, which shows "expert perspective", should shift some characters higher or lower? "Ike+Pikachu should be higher, in my opinion. Pikachu's thunder always seems to be very cheap --"

You can always go and build your own tier list with the "n00b perspective", but these are very subject to change in even short amounts of time. However, shifting the high-level-play -oriented lists just because scrubs or beginners want it would be very strange, since they are, after all, intended to show which characters are most viable in competitive play. Not to show which characters are capable of getting lucky shots.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't post, but it's logical sense that there's probably more reason behind these lists than what you can come up with to prove that they aren't good. (that is, a good tier list being very accurate and therefore not needing any shifting for a long time)

But disagreement is a good thing in many matters; it creates discussion and discussion might open new mindsets. Unfortunately, You'd need some pretty good arguments to get Ike or Pikachu or pretty much anyone higher in a tier list of this game anymore.

Beginners often see heavy/slow characters as better than they are, as low-level play has many more mistakes, poor spacing, and a ton of chances to punish. Not to mention that these characters usually excel against the AI well enough. Conversely, technical characters with less direct offense (for example the Diddy you mentioned), or characters with "tedious" playstyles demotive of what a "scrub" would call "fun", are ranked lower in the minds of beginners, since they show their strenghts clearly and directly less often in low-level play, or just get shadowed by the other characters' "instant gain" -style of advantage. An factor, imo, is also that there are lots of people flocking to Smash, who have little experience with other fighting games, whereas a veteran of other fighting games would probably adapt easily to the mindset of how to win in Smash, even though the games are completely different.

/textwall about something completely irrelevant and non-interesting. Ah, if only I were as enthusiastic about my essays..

[I don't play for turns]

What.

Suggesting that the tier list, which shows "expert perspective", should shift some characters higher or lower? "Ike+Pikachu should be higher, in my opinion. Pikachu's thunder always seems to be very cheap --"

You can always go and build your own tier list with the "n00b perspective", but these are very subject to change in even short amounts of time. However, shifting the high-level-play -oriented lists just because scrubs or beginners want it would be very strange, since they are, after all, intended to show which characters are most viable in competitive play. Not to show which characters are capable of getting lucky shots.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't post, but it's logical sense that there's probably more reason behind these lists than what you can come up with to prove that they aren't good. (that is, a good tier list being very accurate and therefore not needing any shifting for a long time)

But disagreement is a good thing in many matters; it creates discussion and discussion might open new mindsets. Unfortunately, You'd need some pretty good arguments to get Ike or Pikachu or pretty much anyone higher in a tier list of this game anymore.

Beginners often see heavy/slow characters as better than they are, as low-level play has many more mistakes, poor spacing, and a ton of chances to punish. Not to mention that these characters usually excel against the AI well enough. Conversely, technical characters with less direct offense (for example the Diddy you mentioned), or characters with "tedious" playstyles demotive of what a "scrub" would call "fun", are ranked lower in the minds of beginners, since they show their strenghts clearly and directly less often in low-level play, or just get shadowed by the other characters' "instant gain" -style of advantage. An factor, imo, is also that there are lots of people flocking to Smash, who have little experience with other fighting games, whereas a veteran of other fighting games would probably adapt easily to the mindset of how to win in Smash, even though the games are completely different.

/textwall about something completely irrelevant and non-interesting. Ah, if only I were as enthusiastic about my essays..

I didn't think my opinion would be taken into account, because i didn't post anything specific enough.

And I don't think I'm as bad as I'm made out to be by you. I'm obviously not nearly as good as people who do this, but I'm certainly not terrible compared to the children 11- who play this game.

And I never said Diddy's playstyle was tedious. I said it's possible fot people to not like playing for truns because it can be considered tedious. And if I did say Diddy wasn't good, I meant to say i wasn't good as him, and I said Meta Knight had never been great for me. I never said they couldn't be. I didn't want to get into an argument.

[mmKALLL]

But you didn't get into an argument. Or maybe you did.

Yeah, you might not be bad, but neither am I actually I am but I'm around much stronger players all the time

And I never said that you said that Diddy is tedious or MK is bad or whatever - I just noted that things like technicality are often disregarded by beginners. And Diddy is so technical that it hurts my butt to play him. I'd say that the three most oddball characters are ICs, Olimar and Diddy, in that order. These are also characters which are often overlooked when you're not yet much into the game. Whereas, as I said, characters with heavy punishing ability are often regarded higher than they should.

"Ike+Pikachu should be higher, in my opinion. Pikachu's thunder always seems to be very cheap, (cheap good) and Ike is my best character."

If the cheapness of Pika's thunder and the fact that Ike is your best characters aren't arguments as to why they should be higher - imo a very plausible assumption from the build of your sentences - why are they there in the first place? Arguments are almost always, after all, opinions.

But yeah. I respect the opinion of others, I'm just saying that maybe the players around you or you yourself can't deal with Pika's thunder or Ike's punishment as well as they could.

[dondon151]

And I don't think I'm as bad as I'm made out to be by you. I'm obviously not nearly as good as people who do this, but I'm certainly not terrible compared to the children 11- who play this game.

if you actually think that this comparison has any value, then yes - you're probably a pretty bad player.