# Forum > Gaming > Gaming (Other) >  My Problem With Tier Lists In Fighting Games

## Bartmanhomer

My problem with tier lists in fighting games is that there's always a debate to see which is the best fighter, the worst fighter, or in-between in fighting games, especially in the Super Smash Bros. community. Also, it takes the fun out of fighting games. Another thing is why should tiers even matter which fighter is good or bad. If you know how to play a fighter in that game then that's good. If not, then you're not doing it right. What does everyone else think about the tier lists in fighting games? I love to hear your thoughts.

----------


## Zevox

Okay, basic thing to point out to you here: tier lists in fighting games only really matter if you're a high-level tournament player. If you couldn't imagine yourself attending a tournament where there's real prize money on the line for winning and having an actual chance at being the winner, you're probably not good enough at fighting games for the kinds of balance differences those are meant to point to to matter to you. For people that good at the game, yeah, if you try to play Little Mac against an equally-skilled player's Palutena in Smash Ultimate, you're almost certainly going to get destroyed, because your opponent will know how to exploit Little Mac's big flaws and is playing a character whose flaws are much lesser and going to be much harder for you to exploit. If you're just a normal person playing with friends at home or hopping online for a few rounds, that's unlikely to be the case though - hell, with players who aren't skilled at the game, the Little Mac is probably more likely to come out on top than Palutena even assuming similar skill levels, since just spamming his smash attacks is actually quite effective at low-level play due to their super armor, and a low-level player is likely to struggle to deal with that.

Tier lists are built around fighting games' competitive scenes, and reflect the meta of their highest levels of play. If you're not playing the game at that level, or at least aspiring to do so, they're a curiosity at most, and not something you should spend any amount of time concerning yourself with if you don't think they're interesting.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Okay, basic thing to point out to you here: tier lists in fighting games only really matter if you're a high-level tournament player. If you couldn't imagine yourself attending a tournament where there's real prize money on the line for winning and having an actual chance at being the winner, you're probably not good enough at fighting games for the kinds of balance differences those are meant to point to to matter to you. For people that good at the game, yeah, if you try to play Little Mac against an equally-skilled player's Palutena in Smash Ultimate, you're almost certainly going to get destroyed, because your opponent will know how to exploit Little Mac's big flaws and is playing a character whose flaws are much lesser and going to be much harder for you to exploit. If you're just a normal person playing with friends at home or hopping online for a few rounds, that's unlikely to be the case though - hell, with players who aren't skilled at the game, the Little Mac is probably more likely to come out on top than Palutena even assuming similar skill levels, since just spamming his smash attacks is actually quite effective at low-level play due to their super armor, and a low-level player is likely to struggle to deal with that.
> 
> Tier lists are built around fighting games' competitive scenes, and reflect the meta of their highest levels of play. If you're not playing the game at that level, or at least aspiring to do so, they're a curiosity at most, and not something you should spend any amount of time concerning yourself with if you don't think they're interesting.


Well, that makes perfect sense. If I play a Ness main in a tournament then I would be obliterated. Thank you for your input.  :Smile:

----------


## Rynjin

Not only are tier lists "for" tournament players, typically they're _by_ tournament players, and based on tournament results.

If people notice that Taki is dominating every tournament she's in, she gets put in a high tier. If people notice that nobody playing Rock has ever made it past the top 32 of a tournament, he gets punted into the low tiers.

That's all tier lists are, when you boil it down. A list of average tournament showings by each character. It doesn't necessarily mean a character is bad if they're in one of the middle tiers, but it does typically mean they're A.) less popular (so there are less Voldo or Yoshimitsu mains than there are Taki or Maxi mains) and B.) might have some kind of matchup deficiency (if 60% of tournament players play Taki and Maxi, it's an uphill struggle if your favorite character has a bad matchup against Taki and Maxi, even if they might have a GOOD matchup against every character the 40% of other players is running).

----------


## Zevox

> Not only are tier lists "for" tournament players, typically they're _by_ tournament players, and based on tournament results.
> 
> If people notice that Taki is dominating every tournament she's in, she gets put in a high tier. If people notice that nobody playing Rock has ever made it past the top 32 of a tournament, he gets punted into the low tiers.
> 
> That's all tier lists are, when you boil it down. A list of average tournament showings by each character. It doesn't necessarily mean a character is bad if they're in one of the middle tiers, but it does typically mean they're A.) less popular (so there are less Voldo or Yoshimitsu mains than there are Taki or Maxi mains) and B.) might have some kind of matchup deficiency (if 60% of tournament players play Taki and Maxi, it's an uphill struggle if your favorite character has a bad matchup against Taki and Maxi, even if they might have a GOOD matchup against every character the 40% of other players is running).


That's not entirely true, though tournament performance is a part of it. When tournament players make tier lists they try to consider not just tournament results though, but the character's overall potential at high levels of play, whether players are currently using them to their maximum or not - otherwise Byleth would be considered top tier in Smash Ultimate (she's actually considered mid tier) since MK Leo, generally seen as the best player of that game, uses her, and definitely wins tournaments with her. On the other end of the spectrum there can be top-tier characters that are nonetheless rarely seen in tournaments outside of a handful of players because they're very difficult to use to their highest potential, such as puppeteer characters like Carl Clover in BlazBlue.

That said, it can also be true that sometimes characters have untapped potential that no one realizes until some player figures it out and starts using it to win tournaments. Over in Guilty Gear Strive, for instance, Nagoriyuki was often derided as a weak character when the game first came out, but nowadays is considered one of the best characters, and sometimes the best character, in the game. And for the most part that's not because of buffs he received (although he did get some), it's mostly because it took a few months for people to figure him out and start showing what he was capable of when played right.

----------


## Winthur

> On the other end of the spectrum there can be top-tier characters that are nonetheless rarely seen in tournaments outside of a handful of players because they're very difficult to use to their highest potential, such as puppeteer characters like Carl Clover in BlazBlue.


It might also depend a bit on the scene and the overall impact of tier disparity. For Blazblue, Japanese players now think Ragna is bottom 4, but there are events that the character has won outside of Japan.

----------


## animorte

Its already been said, but Tier lists in any game only really matter for the competitive scene.

Of course you can follow these Tier lists and choose something thats supposed to be good, but unless you know *WHY* theyre good and *HOW* to use their strengths while accounting for their weaknesses, it doesnt make too much difference. A large part of competitive play is knowing all the _fun_ ins-and-outs of every character and how to exploit mistakes/weaknesses/strengths.

However, many high Tier characters are rated as such because their weaknesses are fewer, smaller, and less easily exploited. You can still see a difference often in your casual play, whether or not you know exactly why its easier or harder in that particular match-up.

I love watching characters get picked up and utilized to their potential. The best example I have is when Peanut started playing Little Mac and making waves. Little Mac is considered the worst in the game. This is just proof that if you understand a character well enough and how they interact with others, it can still happen. That doesnt necessarily mean it will be easy on you Of course his opponents might not have taken him seriously either, but thats a different conversation entirely.

----------


## Velaryon

I do see OP's point. Even though fighting game tier lists are intended for high-level competitive play, people absolutely do use them incorrectly and trash people who use low-tier characters.

I've just started getting back into Tekken 7 (now that Tekken 8 is coming fairly soon...), and I was a little surprised to see that my most played character Xiaoyu is considered pretty low tier. Then again, my play style is a bit unorthodox for that game and as a result I rarely play against other players anyway, so it's kinda whatever to me.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I do see OP's point. Even though fighting game tier lists are intended for high-level competitive play, people absolutely do use them incorrectly and trash people who use low-tier characters.
> 
> I've just started getting back into Tekken 7 (now that Tekken 8 is coming fairly soon...), and I was a little surprised to see that my most played character Xiaoyu is considered pretty low tier. Then again, my play style is a bit unorthodox for that game and as a result I rarely play against other players anyway, so it's kinda whatever to me.


Yes. That is another reason why I hate the tier list. High-tier players put down and trash-talk other low-tier players. It makes my blood boil.  :Mad:

----------


## NeoVid

Another point about why non-competitive players shouldn't pay attention to tier lists is that it's more depressing to play something you know *can* be really good and suck than to just play what you feel like and suck.  As I've learned from my many times asking, "What's the most skill-less OP loadout in Trials of Osiris right now?" and still getting a 10% win rate.

----------


## KillianHawkeye

> Yes. That is another reason why I hate the tier list. High-tier players put down and trash-talk other low-tier players. It makes my blood boil.


This is just something that immature, aggressive people do to anyone that they think they're better than. Playing a video game or having character tiers is just an excuse for jerks to be jerks, and people who act like that will always find some other reason to do it.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> This is just something that immature, aggressive people do to anyone that they think they're better than. Playing a video game or having character tiers is just an excuse for jerks to be jerks, and people who act like that will always find some other reason to do it.


Yes. That's why I don't play with these types of people. I play for fun.  :Annoyed:   :Smile:

----------


## NeoVid

> This is just something that immature, aggressive people do to anyone that they think they're better than. Playing a video game or having character tiers is just an excuse for jerks to be jerks, and people who act like that will always find some other reason to do it.


And it's a multiplayer game, so they'll still think they're better than someone they just lost to 5-0.  "You beat me, you're a noob!" doesn't even make sense, but it's a cliché despite that.

----------


## animorte

> Playing a video game or having character tiers is just an excuse for jerks to be jerks, and people who act like that will always find some other reason to do it.


100% this. Any competitive game of any sort ever, toxic people will find a way to be toxic no matter what.

Even in cooperative games with PvE, somebody will always find a way.

----------


## Zevox

> It might also depend a bit on the scene and the overall impact of tier disparity. For Blazblue, Japanese players now think Ragna is bottom 4, but there are events that the character has won outside of Japan.


True, which gets into another couple of aspects of tier lists - regional differences and the overall tier disparity. In some games that are particularly well-balanced, even the lowest-tier characters are still viable at high-level play, they're just harder to win with than the rest of the cast. And it's not all uncommon for different regions to view tiers differently, whether that's because some regions have more players who are especially strong with particular characters, or because one region's competitive scene tends to value particular strengths more than others.

When you get down to the nitty-gritty, tier lists can be complicated that way. But again, all of that ultimately only matters to top-end tournament players, or those who find such high-level analysis of the genre interesting. If that's not you, feel free to ignore them, they won't affect you. 




> I do see OP's point. Even though fighting game tier lists are intended for high-level competitive play, people absolutely do use them incorrectly and trash people who use low-tier characters.


That's just jerks being jerks though. Tier lists aren't responsible for it, they're just an easy go-to tool for people like that to wield to make themselves feel superior. That kind of nonsense you just have to ignore, otherwise you'll never play anything multiplayer at all.

----------


## Batcathat

> Yes. That is another reason why I hate the tier list. High-tier players put down and trash-talk other low-tier players. It makes my blood boil.


It feels like the obvious comeback would be that if they are playing high-tier characters against a low-tier character, it means their victory is less deserved if they win and their loss more embarrassing if they lose (which I suppose might be why they lash out).

And as has already been pointed out, that behavior isn't the fault of tier lists. Bullies don't really bully because of character tiers, just like they don't really bully because of someone's clothes or weight or whatever. Bullies bully because bullies like bullying.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> And as has already been pointed out, that behavior isn't the fault of tier lists. Bullies don't really bully because of character tiers, just like they don't really bully because of someone's clothes or weight or whatever. Bullies bully because bullies like bullying.


Tier lists are tools. If you know what they are there for, they are useful tools, like hammers. But also like hammers, some people will happily use them for things that they weren't made for because they just want to cause damage. And most good tier lists don't actually tell you who the best or worst characters are; they tell you which characters have the widest set of tools usable in the broadest variety of settings.

Consider Super Street Fighter II Turbo. The tier list for that game is pretty well established, and Zangief is considered one of the lower-tier characters. However, if Zangief actually closes distance with several top-tier characters, the fight is basically over and he's won. Zangief is hard to get to that point, but good Zangief players can do it and manage it repeatedly. T. Hawk, considered even worse as a character, actually has a nonstop loop of throws that allows him to basically repeatedly throw his opponent who never gets to move. These characters are low-tier because actually succeeding at getting close enough is difficult, and the higher-tier characters have tools that allow them to deal with attempted approaches reliably when executed correctly. Moreover, you know what Zangief or T. Hawk will be doing quite consistently; higher-tier characters like Dhalsim and Sagat can employ a wide variety of strategies.

Another example from the same game is Honda. He's a solid mid-tier character, but not because he's a bad character; in matchups where he does well, he does very well indeed, often able to even beat top-tier characters quite easily. The problem is that in other matchups, his strategies are all easy for characters to counter and he suddenly lacks any reasonable offense. When he is good, he is very very good, etc.

The problem here is cultural, not mechanical. Tier lists just describe where the characters fall in terms of power. Bullies who only want to win will abuse this, like Batcathat said. But they would do that even without a tier list, and in many games, they're not even using the highest-tier characters so much as they're using the characters that are easiest to win with.

----------


## Velaryon

People misunderstanding/misusing tier lists can also be a problem when it comes up in team games. Tier lists used long can lead to group think, and while that's no big deal in a 1v1 game (and could possibly even be an advantage for someone thinking outside the box), it can absolutely be a problem in games like Overwatch when you have teammates who are getting angry at you for not using the "top" characters in whatever role you happen to be playing at the time. Yet one more reason why I hate playing team games online.

----------


## oxybe

I don't have a problem with the concept of tier lists.

a tier list in the open without any details as to why isn't helpful outside of a "this is what the person thinks, i guess?".

When I look up a pro player's tier list, they generally explain why a character is in a certain tier, explaining the playstyle as well as the utility of moves, or even going into priority and frame data to explain why a certain super or even basic punch is strong and able to apply pressure (or escape it). They explain match ups and what to expect not just playing as that character and who you should worry about going up against, but also how to counter that character when you're playing against them. 

When i look up a community's tier list, it's generally because you get more information on the character's frequency of use in competitive play and win rate vs a larger pool of players and characters. In short it tells me which characters tend to get results in a general sense and get results against characters I struggle against, so those are probably characters I should at least practice with in case I'm struggling with my main for whatever reason.

A well made Tier list let me absorb a bunch of information without having to do all the grunt work and labbing. I main Ridley in Smash. I own a singular amiibo and it's my boi. I know I'm not top tier and I'll never be, but I'll be danged if Space Pirate Rush isn't stupid fun to pull off on someone and you can't stop me. I still try to put in some occasional lab time with Wolf though, at least when I played online, because it's nice to have a pocket you can switch to and deal with stuff your main struggles with at times.

as for *******s and bullies, those people will use ANYTHING at their disposal to get under your skin. if not the character you're using, your skin or color palette or username or ping/connection strength... it's all open game for them. 

all you can do is ignore, kick their butt, report and move on.

----------

