But they do exist, and again, they're derived from actual results, they aren't just from people going "Hmm, meta knight has more tricks and advantages than yoshi, he should be higher tier".
And that is
precisely why they are inaccurate and unreliable at best. They are doing exactly the opposite of what is required of a true Tier list. Results cannot have any bearing on a character's overall potential. You can look at tournament results all day long, but this will never prove "[x character] is better than [y character]". I would go as far to say that their definition of "Tier" is completely mixed up with what should be labeled as "Metagame".
These "Tier" lists cause themselves to stagnate, skew, and become completely wrong over a short period of time. Most people that adhere to the list will play only those characters which are on top, with few exceptions. This causes those characters to be rated "higher" than others simply due to seeing excessive amounts of play, which degrades the list into a popularity rating rather than an actual measure of a character's potential. The flaw of the system lies in the fact that this data should never be used, else the list becomes something different than what was intended. It becomes a graph showing the victory percentage, on average, of all the characters that were used in the tournaments that were reported. If you'd like some familiar terms, this is what can be represented as the "Metagame", which is entirely different than the "Tiers" of one. If they referred to this list as the "Meta list" instead of the "Tier list", and did not take it to be an absolute measurement of character potential, but rather as a resource that can be used to study the nature of the game and possible trends within it, then they would be correct.
In order to make a true "Tier" list, you need to account for all variables involved with a character and it's possible surroundings (stages), as well as any randomization that occurs within. This is not an easy task, nor a short one. It cannot be "who won more tournaments", nor should it even include them. That is not a representation of the character at all, as then you are adding in the player as another variable, which changes everything.
When you put the player into the equation, this entire system loses it's purpose. As an example of what is required of the player, Smash contains an element of fighting (I consider it to be primarily a Party game, with elements of the fighting genre). The reaction times, thought processes, and knowledge base of the player have an utmost importance in the final outcome of the game.
You cannot make a comprehensive and accurate "Tier" list and apply it to anyone but the player from which you obtained the data with this variable being so important and volatile. The only good the list will do is show you which character is better in that particular player's hands.
The
concept of "Tiers" is valid, but it's
execution is thus far not sound and has been carried out in the wrong manner. You can acceptably say "Meta Knight has such and such good moves, and awesome priority", but you cannot ever soundly say "Meta Knight is better than [character] no matter who uses them", which is what the creators of the list have tried to do. Due to the importance of the player variable in a game such as this, you cannot arguably
ever compile a universal "Tier" list that will have any use.
