I rarely call someone out on noobish shit, but damn dude. I'll let you figure out why you're wrong lol.
If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have posted it. Generally, I find people who say things like this don't actually know how to relate and support their ideas anyway, so how about you cut the bullshit and say straight out what you mean?
If you want to rank which characters are the best, you need controlled conditions... if you have people playing, that is impossible. At the very best you get a correlational study, with haphazardly distributed results that are subject to extreme amounts of bias and inaccuracy. People seem to be good at defending tier lists and dismissing arguments against them as illogical, but not very good at coming up with a valid way to determine them in the first place.
Therefore, I disagree with the whole concept. If someone let a machine sit down, play every character to 100% of that character's ability, and then you used statistical formulation to come up with the concrete potential of each character I'd have to respect that. If you have a bunch of people on the internet bitching about who is actually better and work only from the latest tournament results, your methodology is flawed.
Is a tier list intended to reflect balance issues in a game, and show which characters have advantage over the largest portion of the cast? Yes. Do misbalances exist? Yes. Are people working them out in the right way? No. I'd accept a tier list, even using the shoddy method that exists... five months down the road. But within a month and a half of the game coming out? Not a chance.
Otherwise, the tier list just reflects who is entered most frequently in a tournament and who the most skilled people playing may be using. So then, just call it what it is - Most Successful Tournament Characters, instead of trying to establish some gospel about a character's chances and potential.
But if you aren't prepared to actually explain yourself, I'm not going to bother after this...
