Was Sheik crippled for SSBB?

Wasn't Sheik in, like, the top tier for SSBM? What HAPPENED! And should Sheik be higher on the tier list for SSB4? Share your thoughts!

Tiers don't matter. Don't base you opinion of a character just because of it.

I think tiers may be based on popularity. If you want a character to go up in tiers, then become good at her/him to help convince people that they are good.

Originally Posted by Chad

I think tiers may be based on popularity. If you want a character to go up in tiers, then become good at her/him to help convince people that they are good.

That's only partly true. Characters are not perfectly balanced, and some really are better than others. I mean, Metaknight's obviously better than yoshi, isn't he?

Anyway, Shiek was not only nerfed but the physics also changed her a lot.

inb4tl;dr

Originally Posted by Labrynian Rebel

Wasn't Sheik in, like, the top tier for SSBM? What HAPPENED! And should Sheik be higher on the tier list for SSB4? Share your thoughts!

>_>

Okay, so, what happened to Shiek was that she lost alot of her amazing qualities that she had in Melee. It used to be that she had the strongest upward smash in the game (which is an absolutely stupid way to balance), had very combo-able tilts, and a very good air game.

They basically nerfed her air game, and plenty of characters (ie. the ones above her on the tier list) have better air games than she does. Or, at least, they do a much better job on the ground. Shiek's tilts do not combo at all any more, whereas in Melee, you could go from 0% to 40% on the right characters while using the right moves and guessing which way your opponent was going to DI.

The lack of hitstun in Brawl, allows you to basically take the hit, and hit Shiek right back. The only exception to this is Ganondorf, who stands no chance against a Shiek, because he gets locked into her forward tilt forever, and then can be KO'd real easily.

I will admit, though, I did not play Shiek very often, and I don't have huge knowledge about her gameplay. All I know is that she was considered the best character for a very long time (and, in the opposite of Meta Knight, was actually quite rare at competition)

Now, I have no idea what you mean by "should be higher on the tier list for SSB4." It really sounds like you think that the developers set the tier list and know exactly how their game is going to balance out in the end. If that's the case, then you don't quite know what tiers mean.

If you mean should she be buffed for the next installment of Smash, then sure, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Aura Pulse

Tiers don't matter. Don't base you opinion of a character just because of it.

I like this post; it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

Originally Posted by Chad

I think tiers may be based on popularity. If you want a character to go up in tiers, then become good at her/him to help convince people that they are good.

No, they are not based on popularity. There are different tier lists, but I'm pretty sure the one Labrynian Rebel is talking about is the Smashboards tier list.

The Smashboards tier list is technically based on popularity. But, what happens is that the best of the Smashboards community, the competitive Smash community, get together and vote on each character and rank them and give them a point rating. While I don't quite like this system and there may be some questionable things here and there (such as Ness and Lucas being so close together on the list), it's still largely accurate in the long run; we know Meta Knight and Snake are way better than the cast, we know Captain Falcon and Ganondorf suck, we know that the top class is made up of Falco, Wario, Dedede, G+W, R.O.B., Snake, and Meta, etc., etc.

It's not based on popularity. The way you could sway the Smashboards tier list is by doing the following:

1) Use a character
2) Find out some amazing strategy with your character that allows you to beat other characters and mitigate their advantages.
3) Find a way for many people to learn about this strategy.

Number 2 would entail learning your character and testing everything about them and stuff. You would have to find a combo with Captain Falcon that brings them from 0 to 60% or a way to make the Falcon Punch come out instantly to move up him alot.

The easiest way to accomplish number 3 would be going to a tournament and winning alot, thus proving your strategy is the best in that character's metagame.

As a good example, let's use Ken Hoang, the World Champion of Melee. Let's say that he never showed up to Tournament Go 4 with his Marth, and Melee players would never have discovered the Ken Combo as a result. Marth would probably not be Top Tier, but probably High Tier.

gimpyfish is good at sheik

Originally Posted by TheBattler

;2836061]inb4tl;dr

The way you could sway the Smashboards tier list is by doing the following:

1) Use a character
2) Find out some amazing strategy with your character that allows you to beat other characters and mitigate their advantages.
3) Find a way for many people to learn about this strategy.

Number 2 would entail learning your character and testing everything about them and stuff. You would have to find a combo with Captain Falcon that brings them from 0 to 60% or a way to make the Falcon Punch come out instantly to move up him alot.

The easiest way to accomplish number 3 would be going to a tournament and winning alot, thus proving your strategy is the best in that character's metagame.

As a good example, let's use Ken Hoang, the World Champion of Melee. Let's say that he never showed up to Tournament Go 4 with his Marth, and Melee players would never have discovered the Ken Combo as a result. Marth would probably not be Top Tier, but probably High Tier.

That's a longer version of what I was talking about doing. (1)Find a character, (2)get really good at him, and (3)convince people that they are good. Like finding a wicked sweet and effective strategy that's hard to beat.

"melee players would never have discovered the ken combo"

yes they would. it'd just be called something else.

Originally Posted by man_with_thooo

That's only partly true. Characters are not perfectly balanced, and some really are better than others. I mean, Metaknight's obviously better than yoshi, isn't he?

No, not always. Someone could be best with Yoshi and worst with Metaknight. It all depends on how you play.

if two people with the exact same skill levels faced off, one using metaknight and one using yoshi, the metaknight would.

metaknight is ridiculously easy to you; if you're good with him, you're FANTASTIC. an amazing ganondorf will have trouble against a fairly good metaknight.

That said, it's always the player's fault if a character sucks. Every character can be used to win, if someone knows how to play them well. If you keep playing as a certain character, and keep losing, switch to another one.

i've always wondered why scrubs come into threads about tiers and pretty much say "u r queer olol see wut i did thar"

yeah okay you don't like tiers - ignore them, don't cry about it.

Originally Posted by Kitsuné

i've always wondered why scrubs come into threads about tiers and pretty much say "u r queer olol see wut i did thar"

yeah okay you don't like tiers - ignore them, don't cry about it.

Because one image at the top of my post overrides everything I say after it, right? My post wasn't crying about tiers, I was commenting on how the player is more at fault for a character sucking most of the time, rather than the character itself.

Character skill and player skill are two different things.

There will always be characters that are inherently better than others in any multiplayer game, fighting or otherwise.

Whether a player is good or bad with that character doesn't change that the character itself is better or worse than other characters. Tier lists assume characters are being played at the same player skill level (typically the best they can be played at given the currently known tricks and strategies); in other words, the only thing that affects the outcome is how good the character is. Additionally, tier lists are an approximation of overall effectiveness. Basically, a character who does well against more characters places higher on the list. It is possible for a high tier character to do badly against a low tier character (this is what's called a counter), it does not invalidate that character's place on the tier list.

A good player can win using the worst character in the game against a bad player using the best character in the game. That doesn't say anything about tier lists, it just means the player who won was (much?) better.

Originally Posted by e_alert

Character skill and player skill are two different things.

There will always be characters that are inherently better than others in any multiplayer game, fighting or otherwise.

Whether a player is good or bad with that character doesn't change that the character itself is better or worse than other characters. Tier lists assume characters are being played at the same player skill level (typically the best they can currently be played at given the currently known tricks and strategies); in other words, the only thing that affects the outcome is how good the character is. Additionally, tier lists are an approximation of overall effectiveness. Basically, a character who does well against more characters places higher on the list. It is possible for a high tier character to do badly against a low tier character (this is what's called a counter), it does not invalidate that character's place on the tier list.

A good player can win using the worst character in the game against a bad player using the best character in the game. That doesn't say anything about tier lists, it just means the player who won was (much?) better.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I just have a hard time thinking otherwise when people could win with Dan in Street Fighter, before they half assedly made him decent.

Originally Posted by PyroShadow

Because one image at the top of my post overrides everything I say after it, right? My post wasn't crying about tiers, I was commenting on how the player is more at fault for a character sucking most of the time, rather than the character itself.

i stop reading posts when they display large levels of stupid.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Now, I have no idea what you mean by "should be higher on the tier list for SSB4." It really sounds like you think that the developers set the tier list and know exactly how their game is going to balance out in the end. If that's the case, then you don't quite know what tiers mean.

If you mean should she be buffed for the next installment of Smash, then sure, that makes sense.

No, they are not based on popularity. There are different tier lists, but I'm pretty sure the one Labrynian Rebel is talking about is the Smashboards tier list.

I know that the tiers are created by fans, and yes I'm talking about the Smashboards tier list...

And by "should be higher on the tier list for SSB4" I mean her character should be improved or taken back to her melee stats, I said what I said because I didn't exactly know a better way to word it, but I guess "buff up" gets the point across a lot better, so yeah confusion aside...

Alright, this is not a thread about how valid the idea of tiers are, the question is how sheik moved down in the tiers (or "lost popularity by the fan base" if you like that terminology better) and whether or not this is justified, and how, or should, this be changed for the next super smash bros. game? Hope I clarified some stuff

She wasn't crippled, she was just less overpowered. Her tier list placement now is balanced as she isn't bottom or top.

Originally Posted by Kitsuné

"melee players would never have discovered the ken combo"

yes they would. it'd just be called something else.

No no no, I was giving a hypothetical situation.

I was saying, imagine if no one had ever discovered the Ken Combo.

Originally Posted by PyroShadow

That said, it's always the player's fault if a character sucks. Every character can be used to win, if someone knows how to play them well. If you keep playing as a certain character, and keep losing, switch to another one.

LOL Wow. You're super ignorant for posting that image.

A Tier List should ALWAYS (and the Smashboards one does) assume both characters are equally skilled and playing to the currently known peak.

And, no, not every character can be played to win. Ganondorf is completely unviable in a tourney setting. I'm a bout 50-50 with most of my friends when playing Ganondorf, maybe I am just more skilled than them, maybe they suck. But I would get my ass wooped in a tournament situation, especially if they're allowed to choose a second character; anyone could just choose Sheik and lock me with her forward tilt until I get to 120% or so.