An example of why you should not use a character based on tier list position.

[RyNo 86]

Much more than just statistics goes into the tier lists.

 

[Facet]

I'd just like to point out that theoretically, the fact that a certain character has good matchups against good characters is taken into account in the tier list itself. Having a good matchup against Snake is a positive attribute that raises a characters tier standing alot more than having a good matchup against Falcon. Also, its very rare for any character to be categorically good against good characters and bad against bad ones, so in 99% of cases any character with good matchups against top tier characters is top tier itself.

 

[Tage Erlander]

Again, red=important.

@ Tage Erlander: The best definition for a tier list is this: if we took all of the best players of each character in the world & had them play each other, the tier list would be a ranking of each character's win loss record from best to worst (generally). Certain characters have certain aspects about them that make them better than other characters.

For example, in Melee, Sheik was a huge Bowser counter. Sheik was faster, had a godly projectile, a chaingrab, & killed Bowser very well. Assuming two players of equal skill played each other, one using Bowser, the other using Sheik, if both players played at their best ability, odds are, Sheik would win.

Let's say we represented the odds like this: if both players played 10 games, we would use their win-loss record as a way to represent how much one characted had an advantage. 5-5 is even, 6-4 is a slight advantage, 8-2 is a solid advantage, & 10-0 is a huge advantage. The matchup above would be ranked as a 10-0 in Sheik's favor.

What tier lists & matchup charts don't take into account is skill. For a matchup like 5-5, the player with more skill would obviously win. In a matchup like 7-3, the player with the disadvantage would have to have more skill than the other player in order to hold his own (let alone win). In the above matchup, the Bowser player would have to be substantially better than the Sheik player in order to win. Gimpyfish is an example. But, like Yuna said, Gimpyfish doesn't beat good Sheik players because they have an equal amount of skill as him.

These matchups are a result of how good a character is. A character with a lot of good matchups would obviously be high on the list, while a character with few good matchups would be low on the list. This is how a tier list forms. Just because a character low on the tier list has an advantage against a character high on the list, doesn't mean the list is useless. The list is a general ranking of how good characters are.

I believe Yuna had a good thing to say about that: "Individual skill will be able to trumph tiers and bad matchups". Period. And I'm speaking Brawl.

Tier lists are not based on skill. They are theoretically based on the outcome of tournaments, skill removed from the equation when you compare character to character.

Matchups, combo potential, KO power, mindgames, and advanced techs all factor into this.

And being perfectly honest, the fact that you seem to pop up out of nowhere and tell hundreds - if not thousands of professional players - that they are wrong for these ideas is not only stupid, it's an ******* thing for you to do.

1. They are not based on skill, but they are assuming equal skill.
2. If you can't take me telling you that you're wrong, then this is not the place for you. Go to smashbros.com instead, they got nice pictures to watch. This is not a "shut up and listen to pros" forum, this is a discussions forum. Take it or leave it.
3. It may not look like it, but of course, I'm listening to what you're saying (although I don't like the childish tone), and I do realize your emphasis of the function and necessity of a tier list. I just don't agree.

 

[RBinator]

1. They are not based on skill, but they are assuming equal skill.

I'm sure when they say equal skill, they don't quite literally mean they are equal in every way. There are many factors that make up skill such as technically skills, mindgames, tactics, and spacing. Different players will have different combinations of how good they are at these various skills and different ways of applying them (playing style). It comes down to a combination of those factors and more when determining how good a player is. It's like the various pros in Melee, many were roughly equal to each other in skill, but they didn't all play the same.

So when equal skill is spoken of, they don't mean their equal in all those areas, it means their overall equal in different ways. Player A could have better technical skills then Player B while Player B has better mindgames, but otherwise their roughly equal in overall skill despite the differences. This is enough to still say the match ups will very depending on who they play as and why one player may get an edge over another.

Well, that's my understanding of the concept of equal skill anyway.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Personally, I agree that it is foolish to choose your character based on tier list, they accurately display each characters potential for success, but I see it this way.
There are thirty nine characters, and that means 39 completely different ways to fight, and you should choose whichever best suits you.
I have high emphasis on speed, thus Sonic seems logical, nope, I also have high emphasis on aerial power, also, I enjoy having a somewhat long reach.
I prefer Zero suit Samus, her capabilitys best match how I like to fight.
If your favorite character is up top on the tier list, or dead last, make sure you put effort into that guy, I can guarentee you if you know him like the back of your hand or the buttons on your controller, and know your opponents character too, you will probably walk away a winner.
Although sometimes a backup character will come in handy.

This makes me think of those online dating services where you enter your name, and crap and meet some person you never heard of at the mall, and then marry and divorce three months after Holy matrimony.

 

[Grunt]

I tried to play as fox in Melee, but he didn't feel right.

>.>

Oh Lawd, another Tier war?

 

[KaosKun]

Some characters have bad match ups against others so it may be a good idea to have a couple of people you are good with in order to counter pick. However, if you understand your character and have a good approach to your opponents character then all is not lost even if your opponent is higher up the tier list.

For example, in melee my roommate played Gaw and i played marth. He knew marth better than i did and won most of the time.

In brawl, one of my friends plays Bowser and went up against a variety of top tiers. He did very very well against them.

So learning a character that you like is more beneficial than playing a character who is top on the list. You will be more likely to be creative in battle.

~Rezzoun (SFO)

 

[TehBo49]

I believe Yuna had a good thing to say about that: "Individual skill will be able to trumph tiers and bad matchups". Period. And I'm speaking Brawl.

And I'm talking about any fighting game where these same principles apply. Yuna was saying that skilled players playing a low tier character can beat not-so-skilled players of high tier characters. The thing is, the tier list doesn't take different skill levels into account. Think of it this way:

Let's say we have two martial artists fighting in an arena. They both are of equal strength & stamina. One has a sword while the other has nothing. Assuming they are both of equal skill, the one with the sword would most likely win. That's basically what a matchup chart would tell us except with more matchups than just one.

Now, let's say the guy without the sword is much more skilled the guy with the sword. This means that he now has a better chance of winning. If he wins, does that mean the matchup chart for this fight is wrong? No, because it doesn't take skill into consideration. The chart just shows the statistical favorite for that match. Nothing else.

The chart says that if both players are playing at the top of their character's current metagame, the character with the advantage will most likely win. This pretty much means that if the best Melee Bowser player played the best Melee Sheik player, then Sheik would most likely win. In Brawl, it would be like this: if the best Captain Falcon player played the best Snake player, then Snake would most likely win. That's all it means.

 

[UltiMario]

A good Pichu could make its way with Spacies in Melee. Your just ponting out CPOUNTERPICKING charaters. nothing new here.

 

[xenero]

Sheik got so gimped in this game. If a Sheik and Ganon of equal skill level played, the Ganon would win since his moves out prioritize his(hers?). And Sheik's projectile takes time to charge. Also, Sheik's tilt combos, while hard to get out of, do very little damage in this game and Ganondorf can usually escape after 4 hits (12-16%).

 

[MiraiGen]

2. If you can't take me telling you that you're wrong, then this is not the place for you. Go to smashbros.com instead, they got nice pictures to watch. This is not a "shut up and listen to pros" forum, this is a discussions forum. Take it or leave it.

God, and once again the classic "Well if you're going to take that tone with me, mister, you can just leave!" argument comes out. And better yet you even chide my 'childish' tone and then tell me to go watch nice pictures. Very smooth.

My point was, Yuna is a Backroomer and a Smash Director. He's had years of competitive Smash experience, and the community recognizes that and gives him access specifically to discuss and host Smash-related information. He has miles more experience than you do on the subject of Smash Bros and what a Tier list is, because he is the one who helps design it.

And you come in. You basically tell all of us "Tires don exits" with

Statistics are crap, because instead of thinking what theoretically would happen in a certain matchup, every match should be an individual case. Doesn't matter how big your advantage is against say, Mario, because you know as well as I that it comes down to who you're fighting, not what character your character is fighting.

...which is impossibly wrong because the character itself does matter.

I mean try bringing this logic up to a Statistics teacher, or a statistical analyst for a company and just see where that gets you.

And to conclude.

1. They are not based on skill, but they are assuming equal skill.

EXACTLY!

I know that you're arguing "You can never really tell who is going to come out on top", but the point of a tier list is to find, statistically, who is most likely if you pick that character. Arguing against their existence because of the infinitesimally small chance that the worst characters (Cap, Ganondorf) can go against the top hitters (Marth, Falco, Metaknight) and actually win which somehow nullifies their existence as a whole is beyond insane.

Have you tried bringing this up to 3S or Guilty Gear XX players? I'm sure they'd be real supportive.

 

[RyNo 86]

I know that you're arguing "You can never really tell who is going to come out on top", but the point of a tier list is to find, statistically, who is most likely if you pick that character. Arguing against their existence because of the infinitesimally small chance that the worst characters (Cap, Ganondorf) can go against the top hitters (Marth, Falco, Metaknight) and actually win which somehow nullifies their existence as a whole is beyond insane. [/B] supportive.

That was my point. The teir list is there as a guide line as to who the best characters are. They are not the end all laws of who is going to win any given match. I mained shiek in melee, because i liked her. Now I still main sheik and I can hold my own against the "so called" top teir characters. My brother mains falco and snake and i still own him half the time.

You can not say that a coherient list of characters in order from best to worst is a pointless waste of time. The teir list tells you who's better and there for who you should practice against. If there weren't a teir list you could spend countless hours training yourself to fight against characters that you might not even see in a tournament.

 

[Yuna]

I believe Yuna had a good thing to say about that: "Individual skill will be able to trumph tiers and bad matchups". Period. And I'm speaking Brawl.

Possible =/= Probable
Can happen = Will happen

Also, Brawl = Fighting game. Brawl isn't a magical game where tiers no longer exist.

You need to pretty much be Gimpyfish in order to beat even a moderately good Sheik player in NTSC in Melee as Bowser. That's how bad that matchup is. This is why that matchup is so bad on Bowser, because you just need to be leagues better than the Sheik to win.

1. They are not based on skill, but they are assuming equal skill.

Yes, and with equal skill, Sheik will always win over Bowser unless she screws up something terrible.

2. If you can't take me telling you that you're wrong, then this is not the place for you. Go to smashbros.com instead, they got nice pictures to watch. This is not a "shut up and listen to pros" forum, this is a discussions forum. Take it or leave it.

At least when I tell people I'm wrong, I have the facts on my side.

3. It may not look like it, but of course, I'm listening to what you're saying (although I don't like the childish tone), and I do realize your emphasis of the function and necessity of a tier list. I just don't agree.

You don't agree on a lot of things. Like logic and facts.

 

[Yuna]

My point was, Yuna is a Backroomer and a Smash Director. He's had years of competitive Smash experience, and the community recognizes that and gives him access specifically to discuss and host Smash-related information. He has miles more experience than you do on the subject of Smash Bros and what a Tier list is, because he is the one who helps design it.

Actually, I was a Smash Back Roomer. Now I'm just a Back Roomer. I randomly lost access when I was inactive for months way back when so I'm guessing membership can be revoked for inactivity.

Have you tried bringing this up to 3S or Guilty Gear XX players? I'm sure they'd be real supportive.

Even in the Guilty Gear XX-series, where the characters are so generally balance almost everything comes down to counterpicking matchup, there's still a clear tierlist (that changes sometimes, but still). The Bottom Tiers in GGXX have won tournaments... yet there have sometimes been an S-Tier with a single character in it because he's just clearly better than everyone else.

Tiers exist... even in paramount of balances like the GGXX-series. I'd like to see someone claim tiers don't exist on SRK and see how they'd react. In comparison, our "tone" is very tame.

 

[Tage Erlander]

I've narrowed it down to small witty replies, so no red is needed here.

God, and once again the classic "Well if you're going to take that tone with me, mister, you can just leave!" argument comes out. And better yet you even chide my 'childish' tone and then tell me to go watch nice pictures. Very smooth.

Nope, that's not what I was saying. I was saying "if you want to discuss, stay. If not, leave." It's difficult to discuss without anyone, so I'd prefer it if you'd stay. Smooth? I don't care.

My point was, Yuna is a Backroomer and a Smash Director. He's had years of competitive Smash experience, and the community recognizes that and gives him access specifically to discuss and host Smash-related information. He has miles more experience than you do on the subject of Smash Bros and what a Tier list is, because he is the one who helps design it.

That's interesting, because all I see is an arrogant kid with over six-thousand posts, who, when unable (or unwilling?) to back up his claims, resort to petty insults and flawed examples. Basketball, hah.

I know that you're arguing "You can never really tell who is going to come out on top"

EXACTLY.
I see my point is made.

Have you tried bringing this up to 3S or Guilty Gear XX players? I'm sure they'd be real supportive.

I don't play 3S or Guilty Gear XX, so no, haven't.

Now, let's say the guy without the sword is much more skilled the guy with the sword. This means that he now has a better chance of winning. If he wins, does that mean the matchup chart for this fight is wrong? No, because it doesn't take skill into consideration. The chart just shows the statistical favorite for that match. Nothing else.

I believe we're speaking past eachother. MiraiGen got my point, it's up there.

At least when I tell people I'm wrong, I have the facts on my side.

Are you telling me that you're wrong?

 

[Yuna]

Just because you're incapable of grasping quite valid examples, facts and evidence (of which I have provided plenty) doesn't mean I didn't provide any. And it's quite potty and kettlerey of you to accuse me of not backing up my claims when you have provided nothing but your (faulty) opinions.

It's quite obviously you're either just intellectually challenged or a troll (or quite possibly both) and I suggest we stop feeding you.

 

[A2ZOMG]

Bah, people still think tiers don't exist?

You guys seriously don't watch enough TAS videos, which are all about exploiting every last detail of the game to the player's advantage using a technique called Frame Advance. At SWF, we know of this as "Action Replay", which can allow players to explore the game frame-perfectly.

If you have any sense of understanding for this kind of stuff, this link should automatically prove to you that tiers exist.

Spoiler

If you call TASes cheating, you're even dumber than I thought...

 

[homicidalrapist]

I don't like the whole idea of the tier list. I believe that everyone should main a character that suits they're playing style best. If someone likes to throw eggs, then yoshi is the best character for them lol. if that person gets really good, he may win some tournaments.

Skill is the most absulote thing in a game, unless something is so totally broken that there's no possible chance to win.

 

[Hoff]

I don't like the whole idea of the tier list. I believe that everyone should main a character that suits they're playing style best

Since when does the list have anything to do with what character suits your playstyle?

Unbelievable...

 

[MarKO X]

Lists or no lists, you have to know your character and have skill to win, whether you pick a high tier character or a low tier character.

Honestly, I can't stand tier lists myself, but when it all comes down to it, tier lists are useful even for the basic information that they provide: WHICH CHARACTER IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO YOU WINNING.

Of course, as been said, counterpciking still exists, as no character is perfect. (except Gil from Sf3: third Strike maybe...) And that's why you have to understand the characters and how well (or not so well) they work with the game, it's techs, its physics, and against other characters. Even if a low-tier character is a good counterpick for a high tier character, if this character sucks in every other way, then high tier still makes the grade.

Someone already said it, "Live with your choice." If you choose to main a low-tier character, know what he/she/it can and can't do, and know what other characters can and can't do as well. Sometimes, it just takes one thing to win a fight... and what that one thing is will be up to you to find out when the situation shows itself.

it's not just about characters. It's about knowledge.

Edit: Cool, I got post #100.

 

[giuocob]

First of all, MiraiGen, stop with the argument from authority. It's inherently illogical and will never help further your point.

Anyway, the tier list is based on tournament statistics. That's just the truth. I understand that a perfect tier list would be based on the matchups resulting from two 100% perfect players fighting each other. However, I have yet to see two such characters (though please let me know if you ever see any). As such, we DON'T KNOW what would happen between two players of equal skill. So, we do the next best thing: we go to tournaments, where we see players of roughly equal skill playing, and use the matchups from there to construct the tier list.

So, the tier list is a list of the characters' strengths as we know them. It isn't perfect, and it never will be perfect, which is why it keeps changing. This means it is still useful as a vague prediction of who will do better in a tournament, but it will keep changing with each character's evolving metagame.

 

[Tien2500]

Ok here is the evidence you want. Fox, Falco, Peach, Marth, and Shiek, win most Melee tournaments. They just do. This is because there is something inherently good about these characters. Skill comes into play yes, <b>but it is a combination of skill and how good your character is that determines the outcome of a fight</b>.

 

[giuocob]

Oh yeah, here's another problem with the tier list. The tier list is based on tournament results: by extension, the strength of each character's metagame. Unfortunately, most advanced people capable of aiding a character's evolution quickly gravitate to the top few characters who seem the best. As such, these characters get an immediate head start over everyone else. So a low tier character may actually have a whole lot of potential, but with no skilled or dedicated players using him, he may never realize that potential.

 

[Facet]

Oh yeah, here's another problem with the tier list. The tier list is based on tournament results: by extension, the strength of each character's metagame. Unfortunately, most advanced people capable of aiding a character's evolution quickly gravitate to the top few characters who seem the best. As such, these characters get an immediate head start over everyone else. So a low tier character may actually have a whole lot of potential, but with no skilled or dedicated players using him, he may never realize that potential.

I've had the same thought for some time now but couldn't quite articulate it. Well said.

 

[Tien2500]

Oh yeah, here's another problem with the tier list. The tier list is based on tournament results: by extension, the strength of each character's metagame. Unfortunately, most advanced people capable of aiding a character's evolution quickly gravitate to the top few characters who seem the best. As such, these characters get an immediate head start over everyone else. So a low tier character may actually have a whole lot of potential, but with no skilled or dedicated players using him, he may never realize that potential.

Yes but I think thats only a problem in the early stages of a game's lifespan. Over time people will try even the lower tier characters and take them pretty much as far as they can go.

 

[MarKO X]

Yes but I think thats only a problem in the early stages of a game's lifespan. Over time people will try even the lower tier characters and take them pretty much as far as they can go.

Exactly. This is what happened to IC in Melee. They were low, but people got bored of playing high tier, so they decided to play IC and found out that they can wobble, amongst other things, and what do you know? Right under CF in the Melee tier list.

 

[TehBo49]

@ Tage: I don't know how much more obvious I can make this. I know you can never tell for sure who is going to win. What a matchup chart does is list the favorite & likely winner of that match (just like in basketball, football, baseball, or anything else). Then, the tier list takes those statistics, averages them for each character, then lists the characters in order of their best records. The tier list just says which characters perform better than others. Does that mean you should main the top tier characters? No. You can use whoever you want. If you don't like tier list, that's fine. Just don't go around saying they don't exist. As long as there are matchup advantages, there will be tier lists. And as long as there are at least two different characters in a fighting game, there will be matchups.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

I don't see a tier list for this game yet

Matchups, yes. Tier lists, no.

 

[MiraiGen]

EXACTLY.
I see my point is made.

But your point is invalid. Tier lists are probability outcomes taking a number of factors in. They are lists that show, given the circumstances, who is most likely to come out on top. They are not the end-all-be-all of Smash.

Your problem is that you fail to grasp that concept. The tier list is a guideline of what characters are flat-out better than other characters, be it matchups or combo potential. You have demonstrated an astounding new level of stupidity by not only not getting that concept, but by literally plugging your ears and throwing around the same tired argument of "But we don't really know!"

The fact is, we don't, but the tier list is still valid as a guideline. If you can't get that concept, you're either incompetent or a troll, and I am officially done with this topic.

I don't see a tier list for this game yet

Matchups, yes. Tier lists, no.

Yeah, how long did the Melee lists take to get finalized? I think it was like two years after the competitive scene became official?

 

[Sikarios]

Whenever I read through these tier debates, it seems like (most) everyone's intentions are good, but people just start talking circles around one another and it becomes a word game instead of a discussion of ideas. Someone like Tage will come along and make a relatively fundamental and acceptable point, but pronounce it in a way that becomes unnecessarily trenchant and causes everyone in the topic to lose focus. MiraiGen just gave this topic the pimp slap of doom, I suggest lockage.

 

[TehBo49]

Why this thread isn't locked already is a good question. This is another tier war waiting to happen.

 

[Tage Erlander]

If you don't like tier list, that's fine.

Thank you.

Just don't go around saying they don't exist.

I don't.

But your point is invalid. Tier lists are probability outcomes taking a number of factors in. They are lists that show, given the circumstances, who is most likely to come out on top. They are not the end-all-be-all of Smash.

Your problem is that you fail to grasp that concept.

Your problem is that you fail to grasp the concept of me not actually saying that. I didn't say they would be the all-god fetish master sword of ultimation.

You have demonstrated an astounding new level of stupidity by not only not getting that concept, but by literally plugging your ears and throwing around the same tired argument of "But we don't really know!"

The fact is, we don't

...

Whenever I read through these tier debates, it seems like (most) everyone's intentions are good, but people just start talking circles around one another and it becomes a word game instead of a discussion of ideas. Someone like Tage will come along and make a relatively fundamental and acceptable point, but pronounce it in a way that becomes unnecessarily trenchant and causes everyone in the topic to lose focus. MiraiGen just gave this topic the pimp slap of doom, I suggest lockage.

Quoted for miraculous truth. I bet my mistake was that I used "stupid" in my first post. Such a loaded word.

 

[giuocob]

Tage Erlander holds: Tier lists are secondary to individual skill.

Yuna & Co. holds: Tier lists exist, but are secondary to individual skill.

So, what are we fighting about, again?

 

[Mr_Hippie101]

Characters that are used the least are the hardest to play against.

I agree completely, that's why I mained Kirby way back when in Melee. I was originally a Marth player,was pretty good too, for a while at least. My friends started kicking my butt though. Everyone in my area mained Marth, so I decided to try using someone else. Someone that I never saw got played much. It was between Bowser and Kirby. I couldn't win with Bowser to save my life, so I went with Kirby.

Plus it's fun to play with people who assume Kirby stinks, and then kick their butts.

 

[Cooper736]

Oh yeah, here's another problem with the tier list. The tier list is based on tournament results: by extension, the strength of each character's metagame. Unfortunately, most advanced people capable of aiding a character's evolution quickly gravitate to the top few characters who seem the best. As such, these characters get an immediate head start over everyone else. So a low tier character may actually have a whole lot of potential, but with no skilled or dedicated players using him, he may never realize that potential.

This is a miraculously good point in a sea of bad arguments. Good players generally do what everyone in this thread (mostly everyone) dreams of doing: inventing the tiers. Look at the Smash Back Room thread in the Stickied section. It's the members of smashboards who are generally accepted to be good at what they do creating analyses of every character in the game. Will the noobish players among us necessarily look into those descriptions and make a character decision based on that? No, many will gravitate towards the high/top tiered characters. But will some of us who want to spice things up maybe look at a bottom-mid character and decide to try them out? Yes.

I got kind of off-topic, but what I'm saying is that the pros out there will try every character, pick the best ones to start with (thus creating the top/high tiers), become the stuff of legend, then decide to try something new. once everyone settles into the inevitable tier list, things will get interesting.

 

[MiraiGen]

Your problem is that you fail to grasp the concept of me not actually saying that. I didn't say they would be the all-god fetish master sword of ultimation.

Nitpicking. You're dissecting my argument and instead of refuting me you're just disagreeing with separate sections that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The point is tier lists are made for a reason, they are guidelines of Smash competitively, and ignoring them is beyond insane.

 

[fallenangemon0]

pwned

I'm sick and tired of this sanctimonious bovine manure about Top Tiers taking "no skill", etc., etc., etc.

Yes, Top Tiers have an easier time winning (some still require technical skill, it's just that if you've got it down, you can do devastating things). Yes, Low Tiers usually have to work harder.

And? It's your choice to play someone who's Low Tier. It's someone else's choice to not to. Just because you play a Low Tiered character, you have no right saying "My character takes more skill!" as if you were clearly a better player, yet they still won just because of their character. You made a choice. Live with it. Don't insult others for theirs.

It's like picking a boxing glove vs. a revolver in a duel. You made your choice yourself. Why? Maybe you like that style better. Doesn't mean you have any right to complain when you get one-hit-KO:ed by a headshot and the opponent walks out of there unscathed.

Make a choice, stick with it, allow others to make theirs.

This quote should be a sticky.

 

[TehBo49]

Nitpicking. You're dissecting my argument and instead of refuting me you're just disagreeing with separate sections that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The point is tier lists are made for a reason, they are guidelines of Smash competitively, and ignoring them is beyond insane.

THANK YOU!! That pretty much sums up everything I'm trying to convey. Anyways, I'm done with this thread. He's ignoring almost all of my posts & we're really getting nowhere. This thread is getting almost as ridiculous as the old SPEED: Fox vs Sonic thread. Will a mod please come along & close this?

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

Hell, I'm going to use that quote to help in my topic of trying the purge the misconceptions of Tourney players in Smash on Gamefaqs. Thanks Yuna! :D.

 

[MiraiGen]

THANK YOU!! That pretty much sums up everything I'm trying to convey. Anyways, I'm done with this thread. He's ignoring almost all of my posts & we're really getting nowhere. This thread is getting almost as ridiculous as the old SPEED: Fox vs Sonic thread. Will a mod please come along & close this?

I second the closing motion. I've made my point repeatedly and I don't think that arguing with Tara is even worth it. It's just another "Tires don exits" argument, but instead of the usual log it's the absence of definite proof that he's going with.

And, thank you, by the way. I try and make clear and accurate statements, it's good to see I'm appreciated.