Archive.png This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
1 2 3 4 5


I looked ad the Brawl tier list and noticed that it is not correct. wario is not 7th, he is 3rd, so diddy kong is not 3rd. King dedede is 6th, not 8th. etc. Kirby0h0 (talk) 03:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

There's an update. 03:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
The update was made today. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

i wish people KNEW what a tier is i know they are real but i still don't like the melee tier but that does'nt mean i don't believe it also im the guy who said the floor glitch is real but hard to do it's about 60% of the time i fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please don't make an account if this is going to be indicative of the quality of the posting you do with it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I can beat a LV. 9 Meta Knight with Ganondorf. And I did a CPU Vs. CPU with Kirby Lv. 3 Vs. Meta Knight Lv. 9, and Sonic Lv. 3 Vs. Meta Knight Lv. 9, and Sonic and Kirby won. Thus I really don't think Meta Knight should be so high and Sonic and Kirby should be higher.

Did you have items on or something? In any case, you need more than three tests to prove your theory. Furthermore, you haven't supplied any proof of this feat. Finally, you haven't specified how they won, or even any other points of why MK shouldn't be as high. In any case, comments like these don't belong here. Please read the message at the top of the page. Sir Anon the great 02:08, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I did not have items on...non...and I did Kirby Lv.1 5 times, then Lv.2 5 times, then Lv. 3 five times and Kirby didn't lose a single time on Lv.3, and same thing for Sonic.

You must be mistaken somehow. I've tried it, and MK never lost. Anon 03:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh I forgot I did it on battlefield...If that all...

How did the CPUs win? Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
All of this is completely irrelevant. CPUs are not programed to fully understand the metagame because they were programed before the metagame existed. Most decent players can beat any Lvl 9 character with any character they choose. Most pros can also beat me with any character they choose. So what? The tier list is designed for when skill is near equal between two human players. The computer has no idea how to play Meta Knight. This guy knows how to play Meta Knight. Also, from a purely statistical standpoint, a single game is meaningless no matter how it occurred. Any single event can be an anomaly. Even if the circumstances surrounding your example merited discussion about the tier list (they don't), having only a single example provides nothing to say we should change the tier list. Provide 1000 examples, and you start to get somewhere, but they still need to be relevant to the tier list. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 13:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


I Dont see why this tierthing is so controversial, heres my take; the highest tiers arent the best characters, they're just the easiest to master, i mean think about it, Meta Knight is quite clearly easier to master then Ganondorf, but if you take time to master Ganondorf, then Ganondorf can be much better then Meta Knight, just saying.....

I know what you mean. I can't kill crap with meta knight but i use Ganondorf as an alternate.File:MG4.pngEvilGRAHAM 0Mmmm Free Goo! 02:48, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

A tier list is basically peoples opinions of characters from different games. I do think that tiers don't exist and people should play whoever they main in order to win. Like some Wario mains actually beat Meta Knight and Lengendary Pikachu beating a Meta Knight in teams. I also play Doc a lot better than Fox in Melee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you think tiers don't exist, read this. Oh, and that last phrase you added (that has been removed) is often grounds for blocking. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy 00:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you think tiers exist, than go watch NEO, Taj, or Gimpyfish and you will see that Tiers don't exist. GET PWNED BY THE DOC KING!!!!!

Doc King, talk pages are for talking about problems with the article itself not about the the subject of the article, that's what the forums are for. 4DJONG (talk)

Sorry, I will stop talking about my opinions and rather talk about improving articles like this one ( 19:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC))

Clarifying info

In most peoples' experiences, tier plays little role in the overall outcome of the match, especially when a player is obviously more skilled than the competition. Tiers are simply a rating based on the winning consistency and potential one character has in the overall understanding of the game thus far. This is only touched in the anti-tier arguments, but this is also supporting of the concept of tier and should be mentioned in the summary. 20:41, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Balance over the controversy

Both arguments over tiers have a point. Some characters have better attributes than other characters. However, it also takes skill to do well with these characters. As many know, the tier list is not set in stone; it is more of a guideline. It is possible for a player using Ganondorf to beat another player using Meta Knight. A higher tier means that the character has an advantage over another character; it does not mean that a high tier character will always win. If a player has significant skill enough to consistently win with a low tier character, that (drawn from the logic of the tiers) player has more Smashing awesomeness than someone who always wins with a high tier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbell888 (talkcontribs) 14:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is made quite clear in this article and the treatise that skill matters more than tiers. Miles (talk) 20:18, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
your a dumb shit, it goes by the matchups. and wario WAS 3rd until they found out that he was not THAT good and u mostly see metaknights, snakes, and diddy kongs win tournaments. 1,2,3 and yes he is 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Remember, no personal attacks, and skill matters more than tiers because, if you are skilled enough with Ganondorf you could beat M2K, when he is playing as Meta Knight. Also the tiers are for the characters that are more easily mastered than other characters, not who is better. User:4DJONG (talk)

Incorrect. The tier list only matters when all characters are mastered. If it was simply based on learning curve then characters such as Olimar would be at the bottom. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Table Designer 18:02, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


→Reply to Toomai: You stole the words out of my mouth. I completely agree. Olimar would be at the very bottom if it were about how easy a character is to master. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Saying tier lists are based upon how easy the character is to master just flies in the face of facts. Thanks, Toomai.



in my opinion Tiers are bullshit, I can agree with the ones higher up on the page that the tiers are not an explanation to the characters performance, but rather how easy they are to play and even master, I main meta knight and I have done so since the game was realesed since I have always liked him, and my second main is ganondorf and I am just as good with both of them, my friend and I play very offten and he mains link, and he haven't played the game half as much as I have, and it's quiet even when we plays he might even win more then I do. and I'm a real veteran on all smash brothers games, I have done my homework I am very good with almost every character in brawl, including zelda and ganonndorf, so why they are on the bottom of the tier list is just not right to be honest, probably becuse the once who did the tier list do not know how to play them, just a thought though considering I know how they shall be played.

conclusion: some characters are easyer to play yes, but as final verdict teirs are just bullshit thx for me ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't anyone use talk pages for their proper purpose? Didn't you read the notice at top of the page? You also didn't sign your comment. I'm not going to get into an argument about tiers but you saying that characters higher on the tier list are easier to master is false. The Ice Climbers, Olimar, and Lucario are arguably the most difficult characters to play properly. If it really was a measure on how "easy" a character is to play, the characters I mentioned above would not be high tier, Mario would not be low tier and Pit would be top tier if it truly was a measure of this. Just because you are good with a character does not mean the character themselves are good when compared to others. I can play Ganondorf well but does that change the fact that he is the worst character? No, it does not. Sure, I can three stock my brother's Meta Knight with him but just because you can beat up your friends' characters with a bottom tier character doesn't mean they aren't bottom tier. Practically no one's competency list (how good they are with each character) is going to exactly match the tier list. So just because some people are terrible with Meta Knight or Snake does not mean they aren't the two best characters in the game and just because some people can play Ganondorf exceptionally well does not mean he's not the worst character. Also, how can every character be even when their statistics are not? Now before you post again, read this and think carefully before your next post. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 08:16, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

to be honest it's quite fun to see what a big deal these tiers have become, it's like teir wars three god, well it matters little, in my opinion tiers do not exist, that is my opinion and that is unlikly to change, and then there are others what beg to differ, ok then you may belive tiers exists, it's kinda lame though but sure, I only wanted to post my opinion before and omega tyrant sends me a link to prove me wrong xD, sorry mate but I use my own thoughts and experince to create my own opinion ^^ so I'll stick to my opinion on that tiers do not exists, it also makes it a bit more fun not to belive in tiers, it makes the game flow on as it should do when you play it with your friends,

I belive that when someone take a seat infront of the computer and spend hours to create a tier list, it has gone to far, so this is my last post on this place (though it is only my second but thats beside the point =)

as a nice end, why bother proving eachother wrong on a useless point such as this, god just play the game instead we all have different opinions and thats not going to change, so if you want to play a balanced fighting game play blazblue or sometihng and stop nagging eachothers ass off.

thx for me once more ^^

Tiers obviously fuck up how characters are supposed to be played. For example, if Mario is supposed to be a well-balanced character, then why the hell is he in the F tier instead of the C tier. That's why I hate tiers. They fuck up the way characters are supposed to work. Even though I haven't played the game, it's obvious that if trained enough properly, a character in the G tier like Zelda, Link or Ganondorf can beat someone in the S tier like Meta Knight. In short, all characters can be played evenly with some training. --Whackeyeye5 22:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC) --User was banned for this post

Read this. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 22:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


Tiers are the most ridiculous things I have ever seen, characters are determined by skill of the player with these characters, not value. Meta Knight has a learning curve, along with every other character. I don't understand why Snake is so high, you have to consider cons along with pros, not just pros. Why do tiers even exist, who cares if they are incorrect, it takes skill to get good with the characters to take full advantage of them. For a tournament you use your best character, not whoever according to the tier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-52 (talkcontribs) 16:40, July 24, 2010

First of all sign your posts using ~~~~ Second, read this. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 16:47, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
And third of all, it says at the top, that type of discussion does not go here. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 16:48, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Why are Snake and Diddy 2nd and 3rd!? (I use a gamecube controller,so I say game cube controls) Snakes -> B means that he is in helpless posision untul the missle crashes or some one attacks him! and Diddy is third because of his BANANA PEELS!?!? That is...... wow. Mesuxelf (talk) 20:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Snake and Diddy both have their advantages, and that's truly what matters at this point. Sure, Snake may be relatively slow, and have poor mobility, but on the bright side, he has an incredible recovery for his weight class, and he also is difficult to KO. Combine that with his KO'ing power, and you get a tournament-winning mix. On the other hand, Diddy Kong, in general, is a decent character, but his abuse of banana peels is what makes him stick out from the rest. So, in the long run, they both deserve their spots on the tier list. However, I would agree that some characters are misplaced.


Talk pages are to be used to discuss matters that pertain to the content of the article, not to discuss what your opinion is of what the article is about. Such matters can be discussed in forums, not on the talk pages. Omega TyrantTyranitarMS.png 21:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Debates about the existance of tiers

People keep on ranting about how tiers don't exist on this page even though it doesn't belong here. It says clearly at the top, yet people keep trolling here. Perhaps we should issue a temp ban on anyone who puts that kind of content on this talk page? Sir Anon the great 00:15, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal. Shadowcrest 02:24, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point myself The only thing the list proves is that Snake and Meta Knight are broken .The Corrupted One

The images are hard to read

I think it would be better if there were text instead of image thumbnails for the tier list.

First of all, sign your comments using ~~~~ Second of all, I can "read" the images fine and i use an iPod, so they dont need to be replaced with text. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 01:10, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
If text is used it would be better than if images are used. that what it was like a year ago and it was better then.Poodoas (talk) 06:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Images are fine. No need to add text instead. That would make it more dull. Images are easy to "read".--MegaTron1XD:p 06:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
How about image and text?Poodoas (talk) 07:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Attempting to use text in the current format will give all the cells different sizes. Not good. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 12:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Bump. A few more users have brought up more complaints about this on IRC. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:40, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Final Smashes and character balance

Evidence on the Dojo shows that Sakurai factored Final Smashes into the balance of some fighters. For example, take Jigglypuff. This is its description as a fighter on the Dojo:

Jigglypuff has neither a long reach nor a lot of power to its attacks. On top of that, it’s not a particularly fast runner and is extremely easy to KO because of how light it is. At a glance, Jigglypuff seems like an utterly flawed character, but the truth is that Jigglypuff has a few abilities that balance things out, like its superior midair capabilities.

He specifically states the fact that its weaknesses are (supposed to be) balanced out by "a few abilities". He names its "superior midair capabilities" as one of them.

<Down Special Move: Rest> - This is Jigglypuff’s other saving grace. Unleash Rest on an opponent when you’re overlapping him or her and watch ‘em go flying!

Another ability, Rest, is described as its "other saving grace". This indicates that, along with its midair capabilities, Rest is another ability that balances its weaknesses.

<Final Smash: Puff Up> - This is Jigglypuff’s saving grace number three. This move can be devastating if you fire it up in the right spot!

Puff Up is described as its "saving grace number three" - which shows that it, like Rest, is considered one of the "few abilities that balance things out". This is evidence enough that Jigglypuff's Final Smash was designed with the intent of balancing its flaws, and therefore designed as part of its balance as a fighter in matches. This also shows that Final Smashes are, for some characters at least, "saving graces" that aid in balancing them as fighters. Mako Shark (talk) 22:39, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the line of reasoning and the concept. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 22:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this proof that final smashes were factored in to every character's balance. The only final smash that can be said to be made purposely less effective is the Ice Climbers' final smash per the trophy's description. Every character's final smash can be considered a "saving grace". Just seeing Sakurai saying Jigglypuff's final smash is one of its saving graces is not enough proof to confirm this. You would have to find evidence that shows that a character's final smash was purposely made less or more effective to balance the character out. The fact that smash balls can be turned off can be considered proof against final smashes being considered into each character's balance. If they were intended to balance the game, why would you give people the option to turn them off? Also, there are many high tier characters that have good final smashes while there are many low tier characters that have poor final smashes. Snake, who is considered the second best character in the game, has what is considered one of the best final smashes. Link on the other hand, is considered the second worst characters, yet also has what is considered one of the worst final smashes.
As such, Sakurai simply stating that a character's final smash is one of their "saving graces" is not proof that final smashes were factored into balance as this is the general purpose of final smashes. You would have to find evidence that explicitly states multiple characters' final smashes were purposely made more or less effective than other characters. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 22:58, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Part of your argument is invalid. You cannot use tiers in an argument about game design, as the designers cannot predict or even acknowledge tiers. You also have to remember that the game was designed with items in mind - just because they can be turned off doesn't mean that's what they want you to do so. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 23:08, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
That may be, but there would have to be evidence that shows that final smashes were purposely made more or less effective to balance the game. As for bringing up the tiers, I often see people use MK as an example as to why final smashes were intended to balance the game. So I brought up two examples to show that a character's tier position is irrelevant to their final smash effectiveness. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 23:15, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I did say, some characters, not all of them. The fact that Jigglypuff's Final Smash is a definite yes proves that at least one character had their Final Smash incorporated into their balance as a fighter. So, while it's not possible to prove with solid evidence, I'd be willing to bet there are more, particularly in terms of "effectiveness of Final Smash versus agility of character" - the reward versus the likelihood of a given character managing to break a Smash Ball in a hectic match. Anyway, the point is, that's evidence enough for me, and I thought OT might be interested to read it too. I reckon the article flows better without the Final Smash example anyway. Mako Shark (talk) 00:39, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Again, that is not proof that Puff Up was a definite yes to being factor in Jiggypuff's balance. As said before, every character's final smash is supposed to be a saving grace and they were all designed to be "devastating when fired correctly". Sakurai stating this for Jigglypuff does not mean it is factored into its balance. Also, I don't consider this interesting. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 00:48, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes me feel delightful. I'll definitely put the effort in next time. Mako Shark (talk) 00:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
No, but it's likely that final smashes has something to do with balance. For example MK has one of the worst Final Smashes, yet Ganon has one of the best. And how is Link's bad, btw? It's long ranged and does a ton of damage. I agree that the tier list won't be completely altered if we let smash balls in tournies, but they have are a factor in character balance. Sir Anon the great 23:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Meta Knight's final smash isn't "one of the worst". BNK [E|T|C] 23:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
That is just speculation. Actually read what I said and come up with an argument that actually refutes mine instead of saying "no". As for Link's final smash being poor, it only can hit one character and many final smashes cause damage that exceeds 50%, so that is really not a defining factor that gives Link's final smash an edge over others. As for your other statements, it is likely just coincidence that MK has what is consider a poor final smash and Ganondorf has what is considered a great final smash. Like I said, find evidence that explicitly says MK's final smash was purposely made less effective or Ganondorf's was purposely made more effective for your argument to hold weight. Otherwise, you are just speculating and speculation does not belong on the Wiki. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 23:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Link's Final Smash does work on one opponent, but it can hit multiple opponents at once and like BNK, it has very long range. It can also be a OHKO in most cases. Zeldasmash 00:53, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this discussion is over and there is no need to argue over the effectiveness of Link's final smash. However, it is far from being an OHKO. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 00:56, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
ZS. Know the meaning of a OHKO. It must defeat in ONE hit. Multiple hits are used in the Triforce Slash.--MegaTron1XD:p 05:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Is this serious?

Can somebody post a link or something to the "new" Melee tier list? I'm having a hard time believing it. Kperfekt Talk Is Cheap... But I Am Not. 18:16, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Melee list

While it is mostly a joke, should the "Gengar tier" at least be noted due to the line

"GENGAR Gengar (Master Hand and other glitches)"

simply as a point of reference for glitches? Smoreking(T) (c) 21:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I noted the Gengar tier on the List of NTSC tier lists page; if you don't think that's enough you could add it here, I don't think it'd be a problem. Toomai Glittershine Data Node 21:08, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Should a new page be made specifically for the new Zelda/Link category?

No.--MegaTron1XD:p 23:09, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

My Eyes!

Mind if we change the tier list colors? The current ones are a little hard on the eyes. Beecanoe (talk) 22:01, November 12, 2010 (UTC)Beecanoe

Fairness of Tier Lists?

I'm not saying that I disagree with the idea of the Tier List, but shouldn't it be based off of the actual abilities of the character, rather than tournament rankings? I mean, it's possible for Ganondorf to win a tournament, despite the odds. I can understand the "likeliness" of tournament winnings, but actual tournament rankings are a bit of a stretch to me.

--ForeverForgotten (I forgot my password, and my e-mail is screwed up, so... yeah.)

I seriously could not find Pokemon Trainer on the Brawl Tier List. Beecanoe (talk) 01:06, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


Aren't you guys forgetting about 64? Barely-no one talked about the Smash 64 Tier List. Why would we need one, I mean, come on. Why put Link on the bottom of 64 and Brawl, Why put MK and Fox so high for so many years. MK and Fox (SSBM) are two overly powered characters. You saw Fox get a de-buff in Brawl, correct. Tier Lists are made by a small amount of votes, but not 100's of 1000's of 10,000's of votes. If you tell me, the tier lists are false, and cover up the truth. If people want to measure correctly, they have to ask me, ZeldaFanUltima for ACCURATE information.

Also, though most people do not understand yet, I found out something that you mistook.

Moon Walk in Brawl

For real, moon walks ARE in Brawl. With moon walking, Link is better in the game, since he is #1 Moon Walker in Brawl. 13:47, August 9, 2011 (UTC)ZeldaFanUltima (SWF)


I think we need the Most recent Tier Lists. Articles are having clashes because of this. GunBlazer (talk) 15:44, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever version, tiers still suck 00:36, January 30, 2012 (UTC)


NEW TIER LIST RELEASED! GunBlazer (talk) 19:55, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Kyoshi1's tier list

Kyoshi1's tier list is featured on the tier list page, although it should probably be removed. It was removed and then Mr. Anon put it back with this as the reason, "Smashboards doesn't have a monopoly on tier lists. Kyoshi spend a lot of time on this." While it is true that smashboards does not have the monopoly on tier lists, the tier list page specifically makes reference to the SBR and states that it is usually considered the official tier list. This talk page even refers directly to SBR and not other tier lists. The statement that Kyoshi spent a lot of time on the list that was made does not seem to be accurate. A quick glance at the list shows Olimar on there twice for example... I also doubt that Kyoshi's list has been put through the same grueling process as the SBR list and analyzed by a community of smashers (many of which are professional and top professional) rather than one person. If anything Kyoshi's list should be featured on a separate page to recognize that it exists, but not put it up in comparison with the "official" list. There also was a Melee tier list that used to be on the tier list page, but has since been removed. I was told about it by another person, but I never saw how bad it was. This leaves the question of why it was removed, but not Kyoshi's Brawl list.

No idea. GunBlazer (talk) 14:03, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

MajinYoshi- I feel the same, I noticed that Olimar was listed twice: once at the top and once at the bottom. The only characters I feel are accurate on that tier list are the mid tier characters. And tiers are completely based on tournament results last time I checked. Cptn Falcon, Charizard, Peach, Ivysaur, Link, Kirby,Falco, Lucario, Sheik, Toon Link and Marth are all WAY off! I don't think guy has actually ever played SSBB. And people who actually think that Cptn Falcon is good should stop playing against CPUs, wait till they're older than 8 and wise up.

Olimar #1: W/Pikmin. Olimar#2: W/O Pikmin GunBlazer (talk) 17:27, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Kyoshi's tier list should be removed or placed on a separate page. His list appears to be made by the contribution of solely himself where as the SBR tier list has contributions from a large variety of smashers who compete on a regular basis. - (ZAV (talk) 00:05, May 8, 2012 (UTC))

It's been 10 days and no one posted a dissenting opinion, so I removed the list from the page. It still has its own page, though. Player_03 t/c 14:41, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
GunBlazer reverted my edit on account of there having been no formal decision. I suppose that's true, and I'm not going to start an edit war over it, but I think alternative lists should be excluded by default, not included. Especially in cases like this: as stated above, this list isn't nearly as well-researched as the SBR version.
We could perhaps make an "Alternative Tier Lists" section and link to it there, but it should not be displayed on the same page as the SBR lists. I think Wikipedia's policy applies here: this one is objectively less notable than the official SBR list, so it should be given less attention. Player_03 t/c 15:39, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

It might work, but admins should know about it. GunBlazer (talk) 17:05, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

If such a section is to be made, the community would have to agree on who must be in a certain spot so that the tier list receives approval. Anyone who doesn't think of Meta Knight as 1-2 on a tier list and Ganondorf/Link as 36-38 has no clue about the metagame and should not receive the attention when their tier list is half assed. MegaTron1XDDecepticon.png 14:30, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. GunBlazer: We shouldn't need consensus or admin approval to remove this tier list; Kyoshi should have needed approval to post it in the first place. If you still want to seek consensus on this topic, fine, but keep the page as-is until people agree that Kyoshi's list deserves to be in. (And I think we both know what the consensus will be is.) Player_03 t/c 15:48, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

deviantArt Tier List

A user made 3 Tier lists on deviantArt, and some of you may agree to it, some, you won't. Well, if you must know, that the user is me, of course. I did find over 2 million people already who agree with me, so who says you can't agree? I rank solely on specialized tournaments, vs outcomes, and all in all, statistics. I think you all can agree. Go here:

Now, you may think, HUH? Well, I myself am a professional video gamer, and I do not tell any lies, I worked really hard on these tier lists, and please do not hate on me. I put a lot of time into this.

-Requiem of Ice

"I did find over 2 million people already who agree with me"
Let's think here for a moment.
2 million people.
To start, let's visualize how many is "2 million people". About 2 million is about how many people went to the Olympic Park in London 2012. That is about how many citizens are currently living in FYR Macedonia in South Eastern Europe. This is also about how many people living in Houston, Texas, as well about twice the population of San Jose, California. It is also larger than the population of a variety of countries, such as Qatar, Estonia, and Bahrain. Heck, 2 million is forty times the population of the Faroe Islands.
Now, let's investigate your page. Your list has only 2 pages of comments. This itself is a very generous figure, as the second page consists entirely of one reply. Additionally, except for you, only one other person has responded. So, in all, you have two people behind your cause. You're about one million times smaller than you lead others to believe.
And, let's look at the Smash community. SWForums, which has a total of 122,052 members right now. Through basic multiplication, we can assume that AllisBrawl has about 51,585 users. Now, let's think here for a moment. You're saying that you got a group about 16 times larger than the largest Smash Bros. forum in the world and about thirty nine times larger than the largest Brawl community in the world thinks your tier list is better than the official one?
Also, sign your comments.
All you have to do is type ~~~~. 00:27, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be updates

I wish the Admins would update this stuff since no one else can because of lock. I mean, that Tier list is years out of date. The 2012 Tier list came out after Apex. Will someone please update this!

Yeah, the list has been updated again. Below are the changes:

-Olimar has been bumped up to #2 on the tier list -Ice Climbers have now moved up to #4 -Donkey Kong has been moved down to #23 (sadly) -Luigi has been dropped down to #29

Proof: [2]

--ThundertheDragon13 (talk) 04:43, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the page is protected for ordinary users. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:20, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
The real SmashWiki has already updated the tier list, by the way. 123JamesHeart 08:40, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

An Update?

These tier lists are in a need of an update. I just want to change it to be correct. However, I'm afraid I'll be bombed with people trying to tell me to get out (look at the history to see what I mean). Someone needs to update this tier list to the correct one (and once I again, no one would let me) LaserVP7 (talk) 14:28, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

New Tier List

There is a new tier list by Smashboards. It came out on April 25th. v0.8 is out. I'm going to change it now24.45.189.29 02:57, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

Confused - How to read the tier lists?

I read the whole page, but never understood how to read the actual tier lists. Yes, I can see a list, with the characters appearing one after another, ranked as either S, A,B,C,etc etc etc. But I have no idea what the different letters say, and if it's good to be first on the list, or last. So can somebody tell a confused wikian about this? Such confusion is of course prefered to be avoided on informative wiki pages, so maybe add a short description on the page about the things I mentioned above? :) Amargaard (talk) 21:57, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the lower the number the better the character under tournament rules. Also, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Teh Player (talk) 20:38, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
Oh right, forgot the tildes, but anyways, I still think you should add that information to the page itself too :) Amargaard (talk) 21:57, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

Teh Player, thanks for explaining this, but this information needs to be added to the article itself. The article states, "The higher the number on the tier list, the greater the potential for that character to do well in tournaments." which is actually exactly the opposite of the way it works. I would adjust it myself, but I'm not really familiar with how tiers work either. The letters and their relation to the numbers should also be explained. For example, how large is the gap between two characters in different Letter Classes vs the gap between two characters of different number ranking? Rdfiasco (talk) 07:09, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Bias of this article

I have no opinion either way on tiers as I'm just a casual player, but the tone of the article is very biased toward tiers. This should be adjusted to reflect a more fair analysis of the facts and not the author's bias. Rdfiasco (talk) 07:06, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

The article is not biased because the information is all true. TheSMASHFan (talk) 21:48, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
It's not the information that's the problem. It's the tone in which it's presented.Rdfiasco (talk) 21:54, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
Please point out areas of the text where you think the tone makes it biased. TheSMASHFan (talk) 22:01, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
It is a common, illogical misconception among these players... This should be something like, Anti-tierists believe...
All in all, some characters simply have obviously more potential than others The use of the word obviously clearly shows that the author is in favor of the tier theory. 22:11, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
The reason this article appears to "favor" tiers is because tiers exist, and that's a fact.
"It is a common, illogical misconception....."
It is an illogical misconception and that's why it's there. Because anti-tiers keep presenting old arguments that get constantly refuted, but still claim "Tiers are for queers" even though facts have proven them wrong.
"some characters obviously have more potential than others"
That's there because it is obvious and fact. Look at the results of a Melee national tournament. Look at how many Sheiks, Foxes, and Falcos there are at the top placements, and look at how few Bowsers, Pichus, and Kirbys there are. Look at the results of a Brawl national tournament. Look at how many Meta Knights, Snakes, Diddy Kongs, Ice Climbers, and Olimars are at the top placements, and look at how few Jigglypuffs, Links, Zeldas, and Ganondorfs there are. TheSMASHFan (talk) 22:22, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
My point is that if you want to bring up controversy over a theory in a wiki article, it should do so by simply presenting the viewpoints of both sides with no judgment whatsoever on which side is right. As you just stated in your previous post, this article doesn't do that. Rdfiasco (talk) 23:27, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
The content will be presented saying they are right because they are right. This article will be presented this way because it's a fact that tiers exist, not an opinion. It's not opinion that tiers don't exist, it's a fact that they do. Weight will also not be given to an extremely small minority that only repeats arguments that have been refuted already like parrots, therefore having no arguments to back their "opinion" up. TheSMASHFan (talk) 01:59, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
If that's truly the case, then the controversy shouldn't even be presented. That's like if an article on gravity mentioned that some people don't believe in gravity.Rdfiasco (talk) 02:58, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
It's also there to tell the anti-tiers that they're wrong. The anti-tiers are significantly known in the community, and it is important to address their misconception so they can know, as well as readers of the article that may be anti-tier. TheSMASHFan (talk) 03:03, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! For practically the third time, you're making my point for me. A wiki article should not have a section that is there specifically for the purpose of telling people of a differing opinion that they're wrong. That stuff belongs on a message board, not a wiki. I'm done here. Rdfiasco (talk) 03:07, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
The controversy is there to inform people there is a controversy in the community as well. TheSMASHFan (talk) 12:41, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually back Rdfiasco up here. A common rule on all wikis is that pages must not be opinion-based, and instead must be passively written from a neutral point of view. If you go to Wikipedia and do a search for "Nazism", do you then read through a page telling of a) a totally twisted and shitty old ideology run by bastards from Germany, or b) an old political ideology originating from Germany, that favored mankind of the germanic race, showing hate towards other races, especially towards jews, afro-american, and slavs. It's important that you understand the slight difference between these two options. Option b is of course the best sollution, even though option a might be just as correct. This page follows option b as well, picking the side of those who believes in tiers. Although the idea behind tiers is perfectly logical, it shouldn't be written as if any other beliefs are stupid. Especially since the anti-tierists consists of such a large group of people. Amargaard (talk) 14:55, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really supposed to peruse this wiki any more, but I feel like popping in to explain why the article is written the way it is - the competitive Smash Bros. community (not the wiki community) has determined that "tiers don't exist" is factually incorrect, not a differing opinion. Anyone who wants to bring up "both opinions should be treated equal" has no argument because neither side of the debate is an opinion - one is fact, the other is a common misconception. This isn't writing an article comparing religions/beliefs, this is writing an article about whether the world is flat and telling the flat-believers how they are wrong. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 16:27, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
The article on Nazism is written neutrally because there are no facts or evidence supporting the fact that they are right or wrong. However, the existence of tiers is supported by empirical results, matchups, and the lack of arguments presented by anti-tiers. As Toomai stated, the existence of tiers is like informing people who believe the world is flat that they are wrong. TheSMASHFan (talk) 19:16, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the article should be more neutral, but what is meant by "neutral" in this case is not "treating both sides equally." Instead, it just means "not being unnecessarily inflammatory". Is there any reason why we need to directly call the "anti-tierists" ignorant or illogical (whether it is true or not) when the article is already full of strong evidence for the existence of tiers? Is there any reason why the information on the page can't speak for itself?

As an example of what I am talking about, I made an edit on this article which maintained most of the new information in favor of the existence of tiers (I believe all that I removed were the bits about dedicated low-tier mains and competitive players' analysis of their own mistakes, which were taken out by accident) while cutting out the commentary on the casual players. Compare this version of the page with the current version. Can someone explain how the major differences in the current revision add to the page or the subject at hand?

Thanks, Oscuritaforze (talk) 19:45, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Oscuritaforze. I think your edits have made the page much more professional and factual as opposed to looking like a rant on a message board to convince everyone that the tierists are right. And in response to a few of the comments above, if the author feels the need to convince people of something, that shows he is coming from a position of weakness or doubt. If it's true that tiers do objectively exist, there shouldn't be a need to convince anyone. As Oscuritaforze says, the evidence should speak for itself (as it does in an article about gravity or the earth being round). Furthermore, if you are trying to convince people, insulting their intelligence with passive-aggressive wording isn't going to get you anywhere. Rdfiasco (talk) 19:59, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

If it's true that tiers do objectively exist, there shouldn't be a need to convince anyone.
Didn't people have to go around telling others that the world was round, not flat?
Anyways, I will remove the word "illogical" in the paragraph, as that is really the only problematic thing. TheSMASHFan (talk) 20:15, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
Didn't people have to go around telling others that the world was round, not flat?
That's actually a common misconception. Rdfiasco (talk) 20:17, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
People actually thought the earth was flat during ancient times, and there was a time when many cultures thought the world was flat. There are tons of other examples anyways, such as how people once thought the solar system revolved around the earth, or the theory that maggots grew out of meat, and the theory of evolution. Regardless, you didn't answer my original point. TheSMASHFan (talk) 20:58, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Don't get us wrong bro. We're not saying that those who believed the world was flat are right - neither are we implying in any way that the anti-tierists are right. As far as I understand from this conversation, what we're saying is simply that we should act more mature, by not explaining our facts by offensively pushing down the opinion of anti-tierists. I'm sure you realize that's the wrong way to go about it, and I'm sure that those old intelligent scientists who first got to know that the planet was in fact round, did NOT reveal their new-found knowledge to others by ranting about the common man's stupidity, but rather by explaining their theory via the use of reasonable arguments and good examples.
It's common knowledge that wikis use formal informative language that is in no way opinion-based. A fact is a fact, and facts are what we strive to provide to the visiting readers on all of our pages, but let's provide these facts in a professional way, shall we? :)
-Amargaard (talk) 12:26, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

Hm... I need to learn how to use wiki's and quickly, or I'll keep missing discussions like these. At first I did such a thing in the player's strategy discussion, but I feel that for the sake of informing I should discuss this here as well.

First of all, I still wonder how the whole "existence" thing kept up so long. Tier lists exist, that at least is a fact and one proven by the lists being in the article to boot. It's so factual that doesn't need to be discussed. People that don't think the lists exist are quite frankly stupid. However, do not take this as an automatic strike for anti-tierism. What actually can be and needs to be discussed is the validity of tier lists, which is a far more subjective matter and what I think people are actually discussing the whole time. It's a slightly long story, but it explains replacing "existence" with "validity".

I talked about this before, but let's go over the past problems again:

Furthermore, several prominent members of the community, such as Mew2King~

(prominent and Mew2King removed)

There's no point in adding some prominence thing to your argument. People are equal for the purpose of digging up evidence. Using reputation (that you perhaps believe in) in your argument makes you seem biased although in a subtle way.

Tournament results have shown that some characters are more viable than others

(turned to "Tournament results tend to reinforce these discoveries and beliefs")

Here's the big problem with tierist arguments. Tiers rank characters. The arguments use tournament results (which are player based). Now let's be honest here... How likely is it that even a fraction of the tournaments in question have equally skilled players? And that's only going into high level tournaments where players actually hit the skill ceiling. Now the results do still reinforce the list (Meta Knight was a winners choice), but just as often (and practically always on lower level tournaments) this can be attributed to human error or inferior skill. Therefore this is proof but not irrefutable like the previous iteration of the article suggests.

Additionally, the anti-tiers' arguments are constantly refuted, and they have failed to come up with new arguments that disprove the existence of tiers.

(turned to "Additionally, the anti-tierists' arguments are constantly refuted. At present, no argument against the validity of tier lists has been accepted as irrefutable.")

To be honest, I'm still somewhat angered by the sheer balls demonstrated by this error. This is easily the biggest sign of bias. There's arguments FOR tiers everywhere, yet the arguments AGAINST (that exist since they were refuted) are nowhere to be found. Neglecting the arguments of one side is just screaming bias. There's also the faulty "existence" thing. Finally, "people have failed" is a biased way of saying things. The actual fact at it's most neutral is that there's no accepted argument at present.

Tier lists have been frowned upon by people outside the Smash Bros. scene as well as they see tier lists as restrictions on who will be played in tournaments.

(Added "This is not the intention of a tier list." and more of the sort)

A misconception among tierists is that people use the tier list as intended. I've been about enough places to see people enforce them or ridicule others because of them. Again, it's a fact that the tier list isn't intended to restrict. That the list doesn't restrict in one way or another is not.

However, any competitive player who mained a character would know their character's weaknesses and strengths,

(turned to "However, most players would know their character's weaknesses and strengths,")

Using a competitive player's standpoint is another subtle thing you can do to make yourself seem biased in this case. Furthermore, it isn't even all that correct. You don't need to be competitive to know what a character can and can't do and you don't need to main any character either. I'm not competitive and I am well aware of Ganondorfs many flaws among other things (heck, that's even why I don't play him seriously anywhere). All in all the competitive bit is unnecessary.

That, combined with more subtle edits, is what is wrong. Actually, ther is a lot more, but this is the minimal gist of it. In general, one needs to keep in mind that tierists of all people defend character tiers with player based results. Second, I will have to repeat that the existence of tier lists isn't debatable. Finally, and that's where my added bit comes in:

It should be noted that the tier list holds significance in (high-level) tournaments. Some of the anti-tierists play on a more casual level where varying skill is a more deciding factor than the character. This should be kept in mind when debating tier lists.

In all honesty, most of this is plain true. It's also important that, when you take a side using this information, you consider the circles you discuss this in.

Now I don't know everything so if people can present more facts, preferably as unbiased as possible, that's obviously welcome. Do know though that I'm prepared to edit any bias back out. It's simply not the point of a wiki. Finally, if I went off-topic and there's an efficient way to deal with the off-topic stuff, lemme know. Soul out! Soulephant (talk) 15:15, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

"Prominent and Mew2King removed"
It's a fact that prominent players and Mew2King say that tiers exist. How is it biased to say that the most influential people in the community, such as Mew2King (probably the most famous smasher today and an icon of the Smash community) believe that tiers exist? It's important to state the opinions of the people who are most relevant to the topic being discussed, in this case the best players in the world.
"(turned to "Additionally, the anti-tierists' arguments are constantly refuted. At present, no argument against the validity of tier lists has been accepted as irrefutable.")"
Anti-tiers do not believe that the tier lists are invalid and incorrect, they believe they don't exist altogether and that all characters are equal in ability. If you don't like how the article doesn't have any arguments made by anti-tiers, add them in then.
"(turned to "However, most players would know their character's weaknesses and strengths,")"
Competitive player=a player who competes in tournaments. Competitive players understand the flaws and strengths of their character, and can tell when something is because of mistakes they made or because their character is bad. I'll add in "and many non-competitive players" as well.
"''It should be noted that the tier list holds significance in (high-level) tournaments. Some of the anti-tierists play on a more casual level where varying skill is a more deciding factor than the character. This should be kept in mind when debating tier lists."
This article is an article reporting on the controversy over the existence of tiers, not a guide for people to decide whether they should accept tiers or not. Don't use "This should be kept in mind when debating tier lists" and things like that.
Thank you for your input though and I will continue to edit the article to improve it. TheSMASHFan (talk) 00:29, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
It's a fact that prominent players and Mew2King say that tiers exist. How is it biased to say that the most influential people in the community, such as Mew2King (probably the most famous smasher today and an icon of the Smash community) believe that tiers exist? It's important to state the opinions of the people who are most relevant to the topic being discussed, in this case the best players in the world.
It's not biased to say that, but anything that implies reverence of something can imply bias. That's about as good as I can explain this, I'm afraid. Anyway, I suppose what you said is fair enough. However, I would personally not use "prominent" especially if it's not the point. Personally I'm not sure what exactly to use instead but the talk point you made is in fact a decent argument.
they believe they don't exist altogether and that all characters are equal in ability. If you don't like how the article doesn't have any arguments made by anti-tiers, add them in then.
This is why I said that I didn't know everything. I admittedly made an assumption based on logic that people at least label the discussion right. Again, the existence technically isn't the question which is why I assumed everyone got the topic wrong (as weird as that sounds). The reason I didn't add arguments against though is because I'm not overly knowledgeable in that department, so I can do little more than give a few pointers there.
This article is an article reporting on the controversy over the existence of tiers, not a guide for people to decide whether they should accept tiers or not.
The thing really needed to be stressed. There's little point in thoroughly discussing the entire controversy if one of the sides has no need of tier lists anyway. In my revision, it had to be its seperate thing though because I couldn't put it anywhere else.
tiers are not relevant in casual play between players who use items and who do not fully utilize all their character's best techniques.
This part of your edit edit, however, more or less gets that point across, so I'll gladly leave that be. :) The fact tier lists aren't always relevant can explain why people take more "anti-tierist" standpoints.
Finally I'll give you thanks of my own for making the article far less of a argumentation train wreck. Soulephant (talk) 14:22, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your input. TheSMASHFan (talk) 21:15, June 16, 2014 (UTC)