True, but it doesn't take into account player competence.
I dont think there is reliable way to measure player competence, so its basically a speculation, that is no better than purely subjective tier lists we had so far. Point-wise I could introduce diminishing returns like basic ranking systems do, where, say, a player that won a lot of tournaments add less to character points, but Im pretty sure that would end up a mess. The real way to go is have more bigger tournaments. When you have stats from 5 its good, when you have stats from 50 you're talking more or less objective stuff.
I think tournaments say almost nothing about how good characters are. It's year 1 and even in like year 10 of games people aren't robots, so character rep won't determine tier lists 100%. This method downplays Superman so it's not even like i'm being biased here.
Edit: Also Starfire should be at 0 I think. If you're referencing Jupiter that was actually top 32.
As for Superman placing its called "meta" tier list. Some chars are good but not worth picking at top level, maybe thats superman case. Or maybe they are simple underrepresented, just as Firestorm, in that particular selection of tournaments. Like I said I can improve on that list as(if) more tournaments come our way.
Starfire I scrolled through vids and marked chars used, somebody used SF as counterpick, though i could only count counterpicks that count (ie won a game). But such small things only matter in short run, on a larger scale (10+ tournaments) it wont matter.
