User:Semicolon/Treatise on the Existence of Tiers

Treatise on the Existence of Tiers by the SLAPAHO Crew

It seems that controversy over the actual existence of tiers is far more contentious on the SmashWiki than other equivalent media, and as such, we here at SLAPAHO have decided to compile this volume. Its intent is to put away the idea that tiers do not exist. First, it is important to keep a few things in mind.

1.Tiers are correlated strongly to balance, and an argument can be made for the causality of this relationship (as in, imbalance creates tiers). If a game is imbalanced, tiers will develop.

2.We’re not asking you to like that tiers exist; we’re asking that you accept it.

3.Anecdotes about you beating your friends with character X who is bottom tier while your friend plays character Y on a higher tier does NOT indicate tiers, but it does illustrate a far more important point. Skill is oftentimes greater than tier. Occasionally there will be matches that you lose because of the relative tiers (and there will be games which you win), but the tier differential is not insurmountable. A smarter, better player can always win out over tiers.

4.We are not suggesting that you should abandon playing lower tiered characters. Smash is about fun; play whoever you want. We play characters in all tiers, and it helps us become better players. If you’re that serious, play only higher tiered characters in serious matches, but picking a higher tiered character will not overcome the skill differential between a lower tiered main and an unfamiliar higher tiered character.

5.Tiers are empirically decided. There are no very few statistics, facts, or otherwise rationalistic data to make tier decisions. It takes a long time to get things right, and in the end there may never be a consensus. The original Smash Brothers tier list still has controversies for just this reason.

This having been said, we shall proceed to the case for tiers. Outlined reasons are the following and will be elaborated on:


 * It is statistically improbable (rather, nigh impossible) that a game as complex in variable (meaning, in this case, the myriad of variable abilities including air speed, priority, weight etc.), medium (meaning, in this case and hereby referring to, a character), and construct (meaning, in this case, the metagame, strategies, mindgames, and techs) could possibly be balanced under almost any set of assumptions.
 * A corollary to this argument involves the unpredictability of the constructs. Since it is impossible for the game creators to predict the ultimate utility of the various constructs, it is impossible to balance them.


 * Even minute differences can cause imbalance.
 * There is a near consensus among professionals that tiers exist, and tiers have developed in many other fighting games that are character selectable.

First, before we get to explaining of the arguments and what they mean for tiers, we have to examine a critical idea: what is a tier? Simply put, a tier is a ranking of how a character (or a set of characters) is expect to perform under tournament conditions based on that character’s metagame. The practical offshoot of this is the idea that the higher the tier of a character, the better that character is in relevant aspects of the game. Tiers are malleable, and change over time (even if these changes are marginal). They are based on tournament placing, so they are empirically decided, and disputes over tiers cannot be decided with logical number crunching (and before you say it, the existence of tiers CAN be logically proven, as we will see later). Instead, they must be decided by a very large sample of data, and from there medium placing can be determined through inductive reasoning.

Another idea important to this discussion is what is behind a tier, or in simpler terms what causes the existence of tiers. Clearly, differences in the abilities of characters are what tiers are based on, say they can be said to cause the existence of tiers. But these differences have a quality referred to in gaming as imbalance. Particularly in real time strategy games, the idea of imbalance features prominently, but it is common in fighting games as well. There is no game that has ever been said to have perfect balance, with the possible exception of Starcraft: Broodwar. So, with the conditionality of Broodwar’s balance, it can be said that the set of all balanced games is the null set, that is, there is no such thing as a balanced game.

Now we will move to the discussion of the evidence for the existence of tiers.

The first argument, the statistical argument, is as stated above: “It is statistically improbable (rather, nigh impossible) that a game as complex in variable (meaning, in this case, the myriad of variable abilities including air speed, priority, weight etc.), medium (meaning, in this case and hereby referring to, a character), and construct (meaning, in this case, the metagame, strategies, mindgames, and techs) could possibly be balanced under almost any set of assumptions.”

Here are some facts. In Super Smash Brothers Brawl, there are 39 media, at least 13 variables, and nearly unlimited constructs. In fact, the documented constructs are too numerous and variable to be enumerated here. With all this variation, how could it be possible that it all could fall neatly so that every medium, played to its highest, be balanced? Simply put, the chance of this is so infinitesimal as to be absurd. Even in the most balanced game in existence, Starcraft: Broodwar, there are only 3 media and about five meaningful variables (there are some parts that are not analogous, but these do not invalidate the analogy). In the case of Broodwar and the professional scene, even the constructs are limited (in the form of build orders) to about seven to ten useful or efficient. These limitations allow for a more even playing field. The sheer number of these arguments (here meant in the sense of concrete items, referring to the number of media, variables and constructs) make balance impossible.

A corollary to this is further enhancing the idea of the constructs. Constructs affect tier placement heavily. Look to the Melee Ice Climbers before Chu Dat, or now to Lucario before Azen. Before the constructs of these media were developed, their tournament placement (and by extension, tier placement) were not what they would become. These strategies cannot be predicted by the game developers. So, if this is reasoned to its limit, constructs affect balance, and balance affects tiers, then constructs affect tiers. If constructs affect tiers, and if constructs are unpredictable by developers, then it is clear that developers cannot program balance. Again, imbalance causes tiers.

Now there is the argument of difference.

Imagine a football game where there are two teams. Both teams are identical, and played by players of identical skill. The ONLY difference is that one team has white jerseys and the other black. This ought not affect the outcome, you might think, but imagine this: the two players have selected a perfectly balanced football stadium, except that the weather conditions are snowing. Imagine if the tournament rules for this game are that it must be played in this stadium, and that any weather condition is acceptable, or even that snowing is the only acceptable weather condition. In this situation, it is reasonable to assume that the white team will win this game, because it will be difficult for the black player to spot the white players in the snowy graphics. Even if this affects a single play, it affects balance, and balance affects tiers. Even a difference as small as having a team with white jerseys can win a game, all other conditions controlled for. The point is not to illustrate a crazy scenario that seems vaguely racist, but to demonstrate that even small differences can cause imbalance and cause tiers.

Something similar can be accounted for in Smash Bros. Even if there is a small difference in a singular game mechanic, the balance can fall out, and this is assuming that the game is perfectly balanced at the start.

Finally, taking a page from the playbook of the global warming activists, there is argument by consensus, which is actually a valid argument when empiricism is the only possible epistemological method.

It is a near consensus among professionals and many causal players that tiers exist. It is intuitive; when you picked up the first game, did you not make judgments about which characters were good and which were bad? Additionally, it has been said that most other games with analogous mechanisms possess tiers.

Now there are some opposing arguments that must be examined. These will be dealt with in order:

1. Tiers weren’t intended.

2. Tiers ruin fun.

3. Individual matchups are the most important determinant in tier placement.

4. Tiers shouldn’t exist, therefore they don’t.

5. Tiers cause the focus of play to go to high tier characters, causing them to be the only ones played and thereby reinforcing the tier list.

The first argument, the argument of intent, is a fallacy. To start, just because they weren’t intended doesn’t mean they don’t exist. In fact, it is very logical to assume that if tiers weren’t intended that they should form. It seems reasonable to think that the developers gave almost no thought to the balance of the game, making tiers unintentional consequences. Indeed, to actually balance the game must be an intended result.

The second argument, the argument of fun, nothing needs to be said other than to read the opening ‘Keep in mind’ section, and then say that this argument is irrelevant.

Of the third, doubtless the most sustentative, it must be remembered that matchup conditions fluctuate and that matchups are not the way tiers are decided. Play at its highest level is meant to control for individual matchups and skill with volume. So, no, individual matchups are not the most important factor because it is (a) already considered through tournament placements and (b) it is one of many things that must be considered. Additionally, a bottom tier medium may have a good matchup against top tier media (see DK circa Melee) but have poor matchups against others. This does not make the low tier medium top tier, though the property is certainly unique and intriguing.

The fourth argument, called the argument by plugging the ears and saying ‘lalalalalalalalala’ in response to arguments in favor, should have its deficiencies apparent to anyone. If they are not, please contact us, and we will arrange for private tutoring in logic. Not free of charge.

The fifth argument, called the recursive argument, is invalid because it does not account for the large variation among professionals. At least for Melee, while the tiers were in place, professionals still played their best medium, and not always who was top tier. Some players are dedicated low tier professionals. Still, through all this, the clear majority of tournament victories in Melee went to Fox/Falco, Marth and Sheik. The recursive argument may in fact have some validity but its reach is insufficient to disprove the existence of tiers, it merely says that the existence of a tier list affects metagame, leaving unproved the follow up that characters are balanced and the tier list corrupts that balance. Indeed, to derive such an assumption from the argument would be a fallacy.

In summation, tiers must exist. Done.