this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
9 points (100.0% liked)
Games
21177 readers
218 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
- Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always thought tier lists made the most sense if you just consider them a ranking list based on matchups weighed with the proportion of characters within a given tournament or meta.
The general formula to calculate the weighed matchup average for any given character would be:
weighed matchup average of char x = (percentage of char 1 used in a tournament)*(matchup between x and char 1) + (percentage of char 2 used in a tournament)*(matchup between x and char 2) + ... + (percentage of char n used in a tournament)*(matchup between x and char n)
percentage of char n used in a tournament is just empirical data. Even matchups can be empirical data as well if we treat it as the percentage of matches won by x over n instead of theorycrafting like most people treat it.
I just hate how vibe based tier lists are. And I wouldn't mind it being vibe based except people still treat them with a veneer of something that's quantifiable.