new? character rankings: tiers

loroku

Character rankings on a "best" to "worst" scale are extremely time-intensive for both the community and the poor folks putting them together. With the constant addition of new characters, this job only gets harder - not to mention by the time a single vote is tabulated and released, several new characters have already come out, making the rankings outdated immediately. They're also a little meaningless on a granular level when you have nearly 100 characters: is 3* Hulk really that much different or better than 3* Human Torch?

So let's try putting together a much more manageable "tiers" list. I know the game already has a tier system, but that's not always reflective of a character's value. If people disagree and think all tiers will be related to anyway, we could do a tier system within each value. A suggestion would be to use the semi-standard system used for a lot of Japanese-IP-inspired games: S through D. To explain:

S tier - Meta-defining. These are the best characters for the most possible situations, or the best possible characters for specific situations that happen constantly. You always want these characters. 4* Jean Gray and Hulkbuster are S tier. Iron Fist is probably S tier.

A tier - Excellent. These are excellent characters you'd never mind having, who fill roles until your S tier characters are online. These are still always worth maxing / boosting. 3* Thor and Blade are A tier.

B tier - Good. These are still good characters overall, or they excel at very specific situations that don't come up as often. They're still worth keeping on your roster. Juggernaut is a classic B tier. Black Panther is probably B tier.

C tier - Meh. The "everyone else" tier. These are characters you could drop if you needed to make room for a higher tier. They're still used for that one-off event every now and again, or they might have a niche use that's nice, but you should be prioritizing your precious ISO into the higher tiers. Ant Man and She Hulk are C tier.

D tier - Terrible. These are characters it's ok to dump at any time, you should never prioritize them for ISO, and you will likely never play them (except maaaaybe some are used for boosted PvEs or something). Moonstone, Ragnarok, and Yelena are D tier.

Bagman - There can be only one Bagman.


What do people think? (Has this been done before? I couldn't find anything in a search.) Anyone want to take a crack at it to start? I suspect ~60-80% of the characters will be easy to rank, but a few will be tricky (likely the difference between A and B, or S and A). If others will contribute ideas I don't mind to compile them and keep them updated. It should be a LOT easier to add one new character to a 5-rank tier list than to constantly re-rank the entire group every time.

Punisher5784

There has been several lists over the years but you might as well use the most common being the latest rankings from February (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=40430). This gives the player's opinion of who is great and who isn't.

Vhailorx

The character rankings are the most recent equivalent.

Northernpolarity's excellent guide attempted to do something like this, but hasn't been updated since Jan. 2015.

And to editorialize on your examples:

Bp is on the same tier as 3* thor. Thor has self-acceleration, bp has cheap(ish) strike tiles and survival node utility.

IF and now IM40 are the clear best-in-class 3*s. Switch, khan, cage, and cyclops are probably the rest of the s-tier.

Iceman is probably the best 4*. The s-tier is probably iceman/rulk, cyclops, imhb/jg.

The a-tier 4*s are probably thing, xpool, thor, carnage, prof x (purely for winfinite combos), x-23, (passive true healing!) maybe kingpin. Some of the good newer releases (nova, quake, punisher) probably also belong here if not even higher, but it's too early to tell.

Crowl

Vhailorx wrote:

x-23, (passive true healing!) maybe kingpin.

Would you disagree with the most recent character rankings then and put x-23 ahead of kp if you had to decide on one or the other to max next?

Trying to decide who gets my next 300k or so of iso and those two have a cover waiting to be used too.

udonomefoo

Crowl wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

x-23, (passive true healing!) maybe kingpin.

Would you disagree with the most recent character rankings then and put x-23 ahead of kp if you had to decide on one or the other to max next?

Trying to decide who gets my next 300k or so of iso and those two have a cover waiting to be used too.

I would LOVE to max x-23 and would do it over KP in a heartbeat, but that's because my only maxed 4 is cyc and she looks like she'd be a lot of fun with him. Unfortunately, my x-23 is only 1/2/4.

Vhailorx

Crowl wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

x-23, (passive true healing!) maybe kingpin.

Would you disagree with the most recent character rankings then and put x-23 ahead of kp if you had to decide on one or the other to max next?

Trying to decide who gets my next 300k or so of iso and those two have a cover waiting to be used too.

Yup, passive true healing > slightly higher max hp on a relatively slow character like kingpin. even though x-23's other powers are only decent.

Kingpin isn't bad, but he just isn't good enough at anything to be a high priority. he's a bit slow (black is fast, but doesn't really work without cheap countdowns to fuel it). He does have self-acceleration, but it's not as cheap as someone like cyclops. And if you really want a battery that runs on purple ap you should use Rulk. He's basically the 3* thor of 4* land. quite good when introduced; a bit slow, but tough and self-accelerating; and now completely surpassed by more recent releases that do everything he does better.

OzarkBoatswain

My personal tier list is in my sig.

Crowl

Vhailorx wrote:

Yup, passive true healing > slightly higher max hp on a relatively slow character like kingpin. even though x-23's other powers are only decent.

Kingpin isn't bad, but he just isn't good enough at anything to be a high priority. he's a bit slow (black is fast, but doesn't really work without cheap countdowns to fuel it). He does have self-acceleration, but it's not as cheap as someone like cyclops. And if you really want a battery that runs on purple ap you should use Rulk. He's basically the 3* thor of 4* land. quite good when introduced; a bit slow, but tough and self-accelerating; and now completely surpassed by more recent releases that do everything he does better.

This was roughly my thinking with the two of them as well, even if she is dragged down by one attack being a trap.

I am quite tempted to just save my iso and hope I can get two more covers for my Quake as she seems like a character that is crying out for the respec aspect of championing.

Bowgentle

Crowl wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

Yup, passive true healing > slightly higher max hp on a relatively slow character like kingpin. even though x-23's other powers are only decent.

Kingpin isn't bad, but he just isn't good enough at anything to be a high priority. he's a bit slow (black is fast, but doesn't really work without cheap countdowns to fuel it). He does have self-acceleration, but it's not as cheap as someone like cyclops. And if you really want a battery that runs on purple ap you should use Rulk. He's basically the 3* thor of 4* land. quite good when introduced; a bit slow, but tough and self-accelerating; and now completely surpassed by more recent releases that do everything he does better.

This was roughly my thinking with the two of them as well, even if she is dragged down by one attack being a trap.

That trap does 14K damage when you match it yourself with 5 covers in purple on a championed, boosted X-23, 21K when the enemy matches.
5 green does 9K.

X-23 is awesome.

loroku

Punisher5784 wrote:

There has been several lists over the years but you might as well use the most common being the latest rankings from February (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=40430). This gives the player's opinion of who is great and who isn't.

Right - I'm very aware of that list and it's the reason I suggested this idea: so that we could get a better idea in closer to real time where characters were in a more general sense.

Also aware of Northernpolarity's excellent guide.

Vhailorx wrote:

And to editorialize on your examples:

And this is the inherent issue with rankings: unless you have a big name that's well-respected in the community setting "the list" and that's that, everyone immediately gets side-tracked by nit-picking. Which is ultimately fine - debate about who belongs in what tier is what we want - but until the list can really get off the ground it is counter-productive.

I don't have enough experience in the current meta to really set a starting list. I'm hoping someone else can get the ball rolling and I'm happy to keep "the list" updated.

Vhailorx

loroku wrote:

Punisher5784 wrote:

There has been several lists over the years but you might as well use the most common being the latest rankings from February (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=40430). This gives the player's opinion of who is great and who isn't.

Right - I'm very aware of that list and it's the reason I suggested this idea: so that we could get a better idea in closer to real time where characters were in a more general sense.

Also aware of Northernpolarity's excellent guide.

Vhailorx wrote:

And to editorialize on your examples:

And this is the inherent issue with rankings: unless you have a big name that's well-respected in the community setting "the list" and that's that, everyone immediately gets side-tracked by nit-picking. Which is ultimately fine - debate about who belongs in what tier is what we want - but until the list can really get off the ground it is counter-productive.

I don't have enough experience in the current meta to really set a starting list. I'm hoping someone else can get the ball rolling and I'm happy to keep "the list" updated.

Ioroku, I feel like you are saying that I don't have a "big name that's well respected in the community" and it's hurting my feelings!

carrion_pigeons

The real value of character rankings is the reasoning behind them, which we didn't get in the last poll (beyond the 1*s). Knowing X-23 is good-but-not-meta-defining isn't really very informative. What I really want to know is, if I do invest into X-23, what role will she fill in the game and how does she fit on a ranking for that particular role, and also what characters does she work best with in the context of her role?

If all you want is a straight list of quality, the character rankings poll is not so outdated that it isn't basically what you're looking for.

I remember somebody writing a blog called "Pokemon of the Day/Week" several years ago which was a pretty popular resource for a fairly similar situation. It didn't rank Pokemon by quality, but it did go into a fair bit of detail about whether or not a particular one was "good" and general reasons for why someone would bother with it and how it could be effective. I think overall that's a better way to communicate genuinely useful information.

grunzadin

loroku wrote:

I don't have enough experience in the current meta to really set a starting list. I'm hoping someone else can get the ball rolling and I'm happy to keep "the list" updated.

There have been a couple posts recently that I think work as a starting point for 4*s:

Colognoisseur's latest 4* rankings and Phaserhawk's latest 4* rankings

Both agree that the top tier includes Ice, Rhulk, JG, IMHB and Cyc. Both agree that IW, MrF and SL are bottom tier. I think most of the community would agree with those conclusions.

loroku

carrion pigeons wrote:

The real value of character rankings is the reasoning behind them, which we didn't get in the last poll (beyond the 1*s). Knowing X-23 is good-but-not-meta-defining isn't really very informative. What I really want to know is, if I do invest into X-23, what role will she fill in the game and how does she fit on a ranking for that particular role, and also what characters does she work best with in the context of her role?

If all you want is a straight list of quality, the character rankings poll is not so outdated that it isn't basically what you're looking for.

I remember somebody writing a blog called "Pokemon of the Day/Week" several years ago which was a pretty popular resource for a fairly similar situation. It didn't rank Pokemon by quality, but it did go into a fair bit of detail about whether or not a particular one was "good" and general reasons for why someone would bother with it and how it could be effective. I think overall that's a better way to communicate genuinely useful information.

Certainly! But who is doing that now for MPQ?

I guess my point was a general ranking by broad tiers is extremely practical because it's extremely easy to maintain. It's not the best information but it's useful and helpful to new people and at least it'd be current. The information you describe is obviously 100x better but it requires someone to put a lot of effort in. If someone wants to do that, great - but in the meantime, maybe we could do something easier?

Or maybe not; there doesn't seem to be much interest in this idea, either.

Vhailorx

loroku wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

The real value of character rankings is the reasoning behind them, which we didn't get in the last poll (beyond the 1*s). Knowing X-23 is good-but-not-meta-defining isn't really very informative. What I really want to know is, if I do invest into X-23, what role will she fill in the game and how does she fit on a ranking for that particular role, and also what characters does she work best with in the context of her role?

If all you want is a straight list of quality, the character rankings poll is not so outdated that it isn't basically what you're looking for.

I remember somebody writing a blog called "Pokemon of the Day/Week" several years ago which was a pretty popular resource for a fairly similar situation. It didn't rank Pokemon by quality, but it did go into a fair bit of detail about whether or not a particular one was "good" and general reasons for why someone would bother with it and how it could be effective. I think overall that's a better way to communicate genuinely useful information.

Certainly! But who is doing that now for MPQ?

I guess my point was a general ranking by broad tiers is extremely practical because it's extremely easy to maintain. It's not the best information but it's useful and helpful to new people and at least it'd be current. The information you describe is obviously 100x better but it requires someone to put a lot of effort in. If someone wants to do that, great - but in the meantime, maybe we could do something easier?

Or maybe not; there doesn't seem to be much interest in this idea, either.

I am interested in this general topic. But a crowdspurced tiered list would essentially be ebolamonkey's poll (he just has 10 tiers). And individual rankings are only as good as the person making them. I could (and have!) offered some of my thoughts on tiers. But no one is (or should be!) particularly interested in my opinion. I am not a whale or legendary player; I don't event have 4 of the top 5 4*s covered. I am just an opinionated, mid-to-low tier vet with a pedantic streak and an inability to keep my internet mouth shut.

When more serious players (like colog) posted their thoughts on tiering, it was a pretty big deal and a lot of people paid attention. But the switch to CP cover purchases has made whaling very expensive, and there are only a handful of people left who can comment on new characters with direct experience.

If you want to start your own crowdsourced roaring project Ioroku, then you can count me in as a contributor. But it would be about 1/2 though experiment for me. . .

Calnexin

carrion pigeons wrote:

T What I really want to know is, if I do invest into X-23, what role will she fill in the game and how does she fit on a ranking for that particular role, and also what characters does she work best with in the context of her role?

That's really up to us, isn't it? We're provided with a wealth of content. It's up to the players to mess around with combinations and define the meta.

Crowl

BlackBoltRocks wrote:

I enjoy these sorts of lists. I'll come up with my own rankings for the 4 and 5* tiers. Opinions all mine

5*

Green Goblin - A+/S-
Phoenix - A
Surfer - B
Black Spidey - B
Old Man Logan - THE BOSS

4*

Antman - C
Carnage - B
Cyclops - A+/S-
Deadpool - A
Devilsaur - urgh
Drax - C
Elektra - C
Ghost Rider - B
Howard - urgh
Hulkcho - J for Joke
Iceman - S
IW - D+/C-
Hulkbuster - S
Jean Grey - S
Kingpin - A
Miles - C+/B-
Mr Fantastic - D+/C-
Nick Fury - B-
Nova - A
Professor X - A
Quake - A
Rulk - S
Falcap - C
SpiderGwen - C
Starlord - C+
Punmax - A+
Thing - A+
Thorrina - A
Venom - B-
Xverine - B
X-23 - A

While your list is good, there are two many divisions by having pluses and minuses on there, it should much simpler along the lines of:

S - Best of the best.
A - Good characters, on a level with the above if boosted, worth your iso when you have those above leveled.
B - Mediocre, useable if boosted, low priority for iso.
C - Waste of space, devs should apologise for their existence.

Vhailorx

Format shamelessly stolen from blackboltrocks. Opinions all mine.

5*

Green Goblin - S
Phoenix - A
Surfer - B
Black Spidey - B
Old Man Logan - the boSS

4*

Antman - B
Carnage - A (mostly for defensive purposes)
Cyclops - S
Deadpool - A
Devilsaur - special snowflake
Drax - C
Elektra - C
Ghost Rider - B
Howard - special snowflake
Hulkcho - D (C isn't low enough)
Iceman - S
IW - C
Hulkbuster - S
Jean Grey - S
Kingpin - A
Miles - C
Mr Fantastic - C
Nick Fury - B
Nova - A (maybe S once I get more use from him)
Professor X - B (except in special team setups, then S)
Quake - A (like nova, may be an S in the long run)
Rulk - S
Falcap - C
SpiderGwen - C
Starlord - C
Punmax - A (outside shot at S tier due to damage potential)
Thing - A
4*Thor - A (with IM40 she moves back up a bit)
Venom - B
Xverine - B
X-23 - A