Bowser's matchups in Chart 2.0

[Flayl]

(ordered)
4: |
-3:
-2: | | |
-1: | |
0:
1:
2:

Lots of details about the changes here

Without weighing matchups this ranks him as the 6th worst character in the game. Ranking with weighted matchups to come shortly.

 

[Flayl]

There are some characters that have inflated matchups above Bowser, so Bowser's spread isn't necessarily at fault for his overall ranking (example: Mario VS MK).

Here's what I disagree with about the chart, with what I think about the MU after the character:

Shielda: -2
Pokémon Trainer: 0
Ike: -1
Ganondorf: +2
Game & Watch: -1
Peach: -1, but I'm not even sure anymore

Seems pretty good overall. Diddy and Olimar are kind of straining it as -2 though, but with Zigsta's performance against Olimars I can see why this is the case.

 

[Cassius.]

So...yeah.

Shielda wasn't that important, the three of us (MrEh, Zigsta and I, because Shielda was thrown into the mix towards the end, where KingKong was nowhere to be found and Vex disappeared long before) agreed adding Zelda into the mix didn't produce a big change because Sheik isn't that difficult to begin with. I dunno.

Zigsta thought the PT MU was 0, I think...regardless he pulled the most weight on that one because I didn't know enough about PT to say too much.

I was adamant on Ike vs Bowser staying at 0. Still am, no matter what anyone says.

Ganondorf was lol, I'm sure we would have gotten the +2 if we argued for it, but it didn't really cross our minds.

We argued for G&W and Peach to become -1s but didn't get it.

Zigsta getting smacked by Illmatic nearly every game he's played with him influenced that, combined with me not really having much to say against Peach to begin with... and idk what happened with G&W.

 

[Flayl]

When Sheik gets the % advantage if she changes to Zelda it gets a bit harder to approach and Zelda has an easier time killing off a mistake. That's my reasoning.

Illmatic beats top players of all the characters around him and places regularly in top 5 in Texas. I don't think it's fair to have the matchup based on those sets.

 

[Cassius.]

Ok, I picked my words badly. We brought the "It should be -1 argument to the table" And then we all realized that Zigsta and Illmatic really were the only two people who play that matchup on a more-than-monthly basis.

I'm looking at the thread right now, and there were literally 4-5 posts before we wrapped it up and agreed on a +2/-2 rating.

From what I'm reading, I think you're implying a skill gap, but even then, I honestly don't know. I know that Illmatic is just straight gorgeous with Peach, and Zigsta is using Bowser of all characters...lol, but I just hate Peach in general because it took me forever to figure out what the **** to do against her lmao. Even then on some days I still get **** on.

 

[Sky Pirate]

-2:

I hate this so much. It's just so wrong.
It's a weird match-up at first, but it's definitely +3 Oli once you learn what Bowser's approach patterns are.

EDIT: Ehhh, sorry. Realized that this is probably a "Bowser-side" discussion. Ignore this. ^^;

 

[Cassius.]

Like I said in the other thread, it ended up being undecided and left up to the private panel. Don't come to us, because Zigsta wasn't allowed to vote since he was on the panel anyway.

 

[Sky Pirate]

Yeah, sorry. I was kind of hoping that there was a story there that the Bowsers would explain, but didn't think it was as simple as that.

 

[Cassius.]

My sentence was terrible, anyway.

Basically what happened was, Olimars (mainly Tin Man) was super adamant about the MU being only a +1, for Olimar, but the world would end before 2012 even turned over if that was shown, so he settled for a +2 instead and fought for it. We had no idea so our ratio was just stuck as it was at +3.

He argued, it was left as undecided. The private panel composed of 7 people had to decide on whether it was +2/-2 or +3/-3. Keep in mind that the ruling was if the private panelist also participated in the discussion, he could not vote on the final decision. So, Zigsta was not allowed to vote, and it was therefore up to 6 people to decide. However there was a unanimous decision of 6-0 to make it +2/-2.

So...yeah.

 

[Zigsta]

I used to think Peach was -1, but Illmatic got a lot faster, haha. It's been hard transititioning against him. I still enjoy the MU, though, and I'm looking forward to fighting other Peaches when I move. As of now, I'm fine with a -2. When the next chart dud discussion begins, we'll reevaluate and go from there.

I agree that GW is just -1, but their side was kinda lacking, so we settled for -2 this time around.

Bowser did really well here. We only improved, which you can't say about other characters.

As for Olimar, discussion was mainly me vs. Tin Man, with dabuz saying after playing me he felt like it was just -2. I left it to the final panel to decide because I was really curious which side they would go with, especially since we had a really great debate overall for both sides. The final panel unanimously voted -2, saying that Me playing the MU well and dabuz's switching decisions playing a big role. I definitely agree after playing literally all the top Olimars in the nation and discussing it in-depth that it's our hardest -2.

 

[Flayl]

I hate this so much. It's just so wrong.
It's a weird match-up at first, but it's definitely +3 Oli once you learn what Bowser's approach patterns are.

EDIT: Ehhh, sorry. Realized that this is probably a "Bowser-side" discussion. Ignore this. ^^;

I can definitely see the matchup being -3, you Olimars just need to play better.

 

[Cassius.]

But what happens when we get AND play better



But in all seriousness someone argued that if the MU was played correctly it probably (more like definitely) would've been a -3, but like Zigsta said, Dabuz changed his mind.

 

[Sky Pirate]

Thank you both very much for explaining that. (^ω^)

EDIT: Especially Limit.

 

[Cassius.]

No problem.

 

[Uncle]

Well done, guys. Overall, this looks like a solid chart for Bowser. The only things I'd change would be.....

Peach to -1
Fox to -1
G&W to -1
Trainer to 0
Kirby to 0

 

[Cassius.]

I really have a hard time seeing Peach at -1 at this point.

I can see Fox as being a -1, and G&W as well to an extent.

I don't have that much PT experience to say anything on that, and I'm not sure about Kirby being even, but I guess Zigsta was lol

 

[Flayl]

Secondary stuff

So basically:
MK is obviously the best if he's legal.
In a MK legal region Ice Climbers and Diddy Kong are your next best options. Falco is great if you can avoid the IC matchup entirely, otherwise he's pointless.
Zero Suit Samus and Marth are the next tier of secondaries.

MK banned:
Peach becomes a viable secondary in a MK banned environment, still below Ice Climbers and Diddy but ahead of Zero Suit Samus apparently.
If you're not worried about Yoshi then consider avoiding using Zero Suit Samus in favor of Marth or any of the mentioned above, she has more trouble with Falco and less benefits.

For low tiers (bottom 9):
Lucas is your best secondary, Samus is decent if you can put up with dittos.

For F-H tiers:
Sheik + Zelda is pretty far ahead of the others

For mid tiers:
Kirby then Sheik+Zelda

Oh yeah, considering Bowser is complete garbage in teams you might want to make your choice based on your possible team character if you want one

edit 2: Also consider most of Bowser's worst matchups love Final Destination. Picking a Final Destination character will help you a LOT. That reinforces the idea that IC and Diddy are your best possible secondaries.

 

[Zigsta]

Which ones do you feel are overrated, Flayl?

 

[Flayl]

all of them

I actually rather not get into it and hopefully APEX will speak for itself.

 

[Zigsta]

Haha, you betcha.

 

[Cassius.]

What about Olimar?

I didn't bother paying attention to his MUs but I am a bit curious

I have been working on my Marth a lot lately though

 

[Flayl]

IC is one of Olimar's worst matchups and if you're going to ignore that Falco has the better spread against characters you want to change against.

 

[Flayl]

After looking a bit more into it a lot of Snake's matchups feel underrated to me. So if Diddy and IC's aren't your thing, consider looking into Snake also.

 

[B!squick]

Pfft. GaW and Mario are -5, obviously. Have we learned nothing from A2ZOMG?

 

[Dre89]

The ideal secondary not only covers your bad MUs but is simple to play and requires less effort than your main. That's why D3 is a good secondary in general.

A character with a similar playstyle to your main is probably preferred too.

So given all the viable options you listed, I'd say Snake is the best secondary to Bowser. He's easier to use than other chars, and has the most similar playstyle to Bowser. He's heavy, wants to stay grounded and use jabs and tilts, and KOs with utilt.

 

[Flayl]

That's not true at all. I mean, not if you want to be good - character difficulty shouldn't be your primary concern.

Maybe if you have a less... passionate outlook on the game yes.

Similar playstyles means similar weaknesses. I don't think I have to explain why that's not a good idea. There are a lot of bad matchups for Bowser that Snake beats/goes even with because he can camp and do lots of explosive tricks, soemthing Bowser can't do at all. Snake VS ICs and Yoshi just an example.

 

[Dre89]

I only mentioned Snake because you mentioned him as a viable option.

A secondary shouldn't require as much work as your main, that's the point of a secondary.

If you put in am equal amount of work into it it becomes a co main, which is different. A sec simply covers bad mus, or in the case of a low tier just the unwinnable ones. They're only going to be used in mus where they a good advantage. A co main uses them
equally.

Although to me having a sec to a low tier makes little sense because the sec is probably going to have a much better mu spread than the main. This why secs shouldn't require as much work, because if you put an equal amount of work into them you might as well just main the secondary seeing as it'll probably be better than the low tier main.

 

[Cassius.]

Why do I have to use said character equally? I can just use that character for one matchup and leave it be. That co-main vs secondary argument sounds really subjective to me.

The character's difficulty of learning is not important at all, you're going to have to put in time to learn the character's basics and that matchup + other **** regardless. It's not/should not be a primary concern in my opinion.

 

[Dre89]

Well if you only use it for a few MUs then it would be a secondary, and would require less work than your main because your main would have to learn more MUs.

Of course you will have to put in work in, but if you're already good at universal things like spacing, DI, reads, conditioning, punishment etc. then a char with a simpler metagame like D3 won't require as much work as say someone like ICs or Pikachu.

Generally, a secondary will be less developed than your main because you put more work into your main, that's why it's your main. Your secondary requires less work because you use it only to cover a few MUs, pretty much all of which are in its favour. I'd have to put less work into a Marth which I only use to cover Ness, Lucas and PT, than I would into a Marth to cover high and top tier.

If the sec that covers the all the unwinnable MUs the best is a technical char like ICs or Pika, then yeah they'd be the best sec, but my point is if there's a sec that covers all the unwinnable MUs, and is simpler to play, or has a more similar style to your main, then that sec is more efficient because you can spend more time on your main.

But I don't really understand why you'd have a sec to a low tier (unless you just enjoy playing that char). If you care that much about winning that you'll pick up a sec, you might as well just main a top tier, especially since your sec is likely to better than your main.

 

[Flayl]

No **** dude.

Ease of use still has very little relevance in a competitive environment btw.

 

[Cassius.]

Yes, but the point is that ideally for a BOWSER player you would need a character that covers his matchups that are bad, like ICs or Yoshi, for example.

D3 is next to useless in that regard, because he doesn't do much in either of the two matchups. If the character you need is hard to use, then so be it--but if you want to be a bit sucessful with that character and you're bogged down by Yoshis and Ice Climbers, then you'll need to do something.

Your argument is assuming that there is a secondary that covers all of those MUs that isn't technical, and that might be true, but still I highly doubt that the learning curve is important in an actual setting.

If the circumstances were that bad, you'd learn the character regardless, which is my point. Ease of use is not important.

 

[Zigsta]

Ease of use is definitely partly why I chose Jiggs and Wario as secondaries. I don't care to play them as much as Bowser, and with my arms I literally can't play as much as I would like, so I just picked characters that I both picked up easiest and compliment my Bowser's playstyle, ie I run and play gay with my secondaries.

 

[Cassius.]

I don't know, for me in choosing a second character it doesn't matter if the character is hard to learn or not. If they interest me or if I like them, I just pick them and run with it.

 

[Dre89]

I never said D3 was a good sec for Bowser, I said he's considered a good sec in general because he can cover mus and is easier to use.

Covering the right mus is obviously more important than being easy to use. My point was that seeing that Flayl listed Snake as s viable secondary, that means he must cover the right mus, is easier to use, and plays the most similar to Bowser of the viable secs listed.

 

[Flayl]

But the way you play Snake against the Matchups Bowser actually needs to cover is completely different from playing Bowser...

 

[Uncle]

My secondary is G&W, and he is nowhere near the best candidate for covering Bowser's weaker MUs. To restate Limit's point, I mainly chose him because I like the character and his playstyle. He's easily my 2nd favorite character in the game to play.

Faring better than Bowser in MUs like vs. D3 was also a reason, but if it were the only one, then I'd be making the wrong choice.

G&W is also my doubles character, to restate what Flayl mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[Dre89]

Well obviously it's a different story if you care more about fun in a secondary than efficiency.

 

[Z'zgashi]

Go MK or (with MK banned) Peach, k thanks bye.

Also, I def wouldnt pick Yoshi as a good secondary for Bowser, you dont get many advantages out of Bowser's terrible ones outside of a VERY small advantage on ICs (which if you dont know Yoshi's many AT's is prob still a disadvantage). Yoshi still loses to D3, Wario, and ESPECIALLY MK, and going Yoshi against a Yoshi main usually isnt a bright idea as they are prob more efficient with the character.

 

[Flayl]

Didn't Xaltis beat a bunch of Yoshi mains at WHOBO in low tiers

 

[Zigsta]

Bowsers should pick up Yoshi for Polt.

He refuses to play the ditto, bahaha.