Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24114180-20140107193454/@comment-24883178-20140430074200

Created this account just to freaking post this since there seems to be so many confused people in this discussion. I don't know how this concept of a tier list is so difficult for anyone to understand. Even the very topic question is so faulty, it hurts the brain. I mean, what the hell kind of question is that? Who in their right mind would agree that a Tier list is what it takes to win a tournament, and not a player's skills and strategies? It completely misses the point of a tier list and its factual (NOT debatable) existence.

The tier list's existence and validity is not subjective. It clearly defines which characters have the strongest skill sets and shows which have the highest probability of consistently winning at the most competitive level (i.e. tournaments). In other words, it ranks the relative potential of a character's ability to win, based on the community's understanding of such character's moves, strategies, and overall meta game. The tier list is absolutely subject to change as the meta game continues to develop and evolve to form new tactics and strategies. This doesn't negate the the validity of the tier list - it merely updates the list to one that more accurately reflects the characters' potential based on that new meta game.

Example: When SSBM first came out, Fox was ranked mid-high. Once people learned about waveshining and how to effectively utilize it with Fox, this made him much more dangerous, and suddenly many players became exponentially more effective with him, essentially bolstering his ranking to the upper tiers of the list.

No one plays this damn game for the tier list, and the tier list is NOT made for the tournament. (Official) tournament results define the tier list, and thus the tier list tells us which characters are currently considered the best and worst. It's that simple.

I'm done ranting.