Mario and Ness are likely -1 MUs for Pikachu, Corrin could be as well (either that or a difficult even for Pikachu). Pikachu is a good character, top 15 easily.
Pikachu has little to no -2 MUs out there. Realistically and without ESAM bias,
Pikachu loses to...
* Mario
* Ness
* Sonic
* Mewtwo
* Maybe Corrin, Rosa, Cloud, and Mr. Game & Watch but It can go even.
Pikachu is obviously top 15 character and I place him at 13th place in my tier list. He is basically above Ryu/Peach/Luigi and below Marth/Mario/Corrin. (No order).
So, uhhh....
Was he talking about the character or the player? If he was talking about the player, ESAM uses Samus for Mario.
Yeah, I’m talking about ESAM
as a player. It may also be that Pika doesn’t have good answers for Mewtwo in general.
This actually leads into a bit of top player psychology:
The cause of the level of difficulty of a match-up varies greatly depending on level of play.
Low level players will find any MU that they are not familiar with as difficult, even if their character doesn't innately struggle. This can lead to an attribution error where these players believe that an MU is unfavorable to their character, rather than to them. This mostly happens when their knowledge of the game is limited and they don't know what they don't know. It can also be tough to admit that you suck because you are still learning the game. Tiers, as a thing, don't generally exist here for obvious reasons.
Mid to high level players generally have a broader MU knowledge base, and have gained the capability to understand why top level players may not struggle in an MU that they themselves have trouble in. Greater game understanding leads to the ability to analyze at a higher level and try to address gaps in individual play. Tiers can have some degree of relevance at this level.
At the
top level, the idea is that you know any given MU extremely well and thus, finally, tier differences become more easily discernible. Individual performance can matter as well, but only in as much as a players skill compensates for tier gaps.
So how does this relate to ESAM?
I'll get there.
Some top players have a tendency to be cautious when attributing wins and losses to either character or skill. You can either attribute difficulty to the character, lack of specific knowledge, or player performance.
Given that top level players have spent thousands of hours with their characters, they are more likely to attribute difficulties to their character and will attempt to increase their skill to compensate. But in a non-team game with 56 characters, lack of knowledge is still a very real issue.
Okay, so?
Well, you see this cautiousness with say,
Dabuz and
Zero, who think their characters lose more MUs than most of us would think. Zero was notoriously pessimistic about Diddy, and Dabuz always tries to balance how good of a player he is when evaluating an MU. They are more likely to tie in character difficulties to losses rather than the reverse.
Oh, this is where it ties in.
Yeah, because
ESAM is the opposite. He is more likely to attribute losses to himself, rather than the character. He truly believes Pika is top 10ish and this is reflected in his MU charts and general discourse. Rather than emphasizing weaknesses, he sees vast potential in the character that he hasn't brought to fruition yet. Which is why he sees Pika only really losing maybe two MUs, as of his tier list video series.
As much as he gets ragged on, I do admire how much of a lab monster he is, and how much he believes in his character. I do think he ends up carrying Pika more so than vice versa, but whatever.