Official Competitive Character Impressions 2.0

[Hydreigonfan01]

Considering Dabuz's track record against ESAM is nearly up there with Maister and Samsora, I'd be surprised if doesn't have the edge in the Pika MU. Not just from a results perspective, but watching more footage of the match-up makes me see that Olimar has a good chunk of what Pika dislikes against Mario/G&W/Ness. Maybe not quite to the same level of effectiveness, but it's definitely up there:

• Olimar's controlling the pace of neutral with Pikmin Toss. Think of it as something like Bucket or Cape where it forces Pika to make a move besides sitting back and T-Jolting, but in a less traditional sense: Between the two projectiles, which is racking up more damage? The one single hit that deals about 5-6% on hit, or the constant plucking that's constantly amassing oodles of percent, doubly so with a White Pikmin? Pika can't afford to sit back the same way he can against someone like Palu or ROB, and that's where the second issue comes into play:
• Pika's aggression against Olimar's got holes in its gameplan. More specifically, how does Pika get in against someone with as much safety on his smash attacks, as little noticeable animations, and as much reward on each hit as someone like G&W? Neutral's a bit easier since Olimar's more vulnerable on block, but we're also dealing with a character with as much of a tiny frame as Pikachu on top of being perfectly content with flinging Pikmin to cancel out T-Jolt approaches and using a long-ranged grab to punish whiffed aerials. There's only a few instances where Olimar actually needs to be forced to shield T-Jolts in the MU, mainly because Pika has to be so ridiculously precise with his small hitboxes against someone as small and disjoint-heavy as Olimar (fun fact, Olimar can simply avoid T-Jolts by being underneath the peak of its arc). And if he whiffs anything up close? That's straight-up an easy 50~60% damage he's eating.

Dabuz listed the MU as either even or in Olimar's favor, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I know ESAM believes that the matchup is even, but he claims that him getting cooked so bad by Dabuz is because Dabuz also knows a lot of ESAM's habits.

 

[Wunderwaft]

So GimR made another video regarding Steve, and this time it involves his back throw. Interesting thing to note is that this tactic can also work against Steve. This only reinforces my thought about Steve being a character with very little tolerance for mistakes.

 

[Rizen]

Sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but don't you all get tired of the Pika talk? At this point it feels like a back-and-forth "Pika is overrated"-"Nah he's just hard to play" without much new really being added to the mix. If you do want to go somewhere new with the Pika discussion, I feel like discussing some of his MUs (like Frihestanka pointed) and which ones he could lose in (aside from the two obvious ones like Ness and G&W) could bring something else to the table.

In my experience, beats both the rats slightly. For the MU YL has better projectile zoning and doesn't care too much about thunder jolts. Jolts definitely make the MU more annoying but Pika is generally forced to approach. YL can hop over jolts while throwing his boomerang or bombs down. YL's own projectiles are very good at controlling the air pika likes to play in.
Then when pika gets close YL's f4 Nair that's a sex kick and his long lasting Dair covers his lower body very well and pika lacks the disjoints to space around them. Pika's at risk of getting KOed off the top of the screen from Dair any time he jumps at YL. YL's weak but Pika's very light so KOing isn't too much of a problem in this MU, although Pika does KO better with better edge guarding.
It's not terrible for Pika because he can vortex YL when he does get in and YL's vulnerable offstage. Contrary, Pika should never get gimped with his amazing recovery.

YL wants to go to big stages with platforms where he can hop around and throw stuff at Pika like PS2 and TnC. Pika's jolts are most effective on flat stages like FD and Pika has the better recovery so Kalos lets him survive longer.

YL controls the pace of the MU with better neutral but Pika's advantage state is stronger (the story of YL's life). Pika lacks the big disjoints that YL hates and doesn't have a reflector either. +1 YL.

 

[StrangeKitten]

Hot take: I think Flare Blitz is an underrated move. I get why you don't want to use it much other than recovery, but you are killing so early if you can land it. It even armors through projectiles, and since most characters have those, the opportunity is often there. I sometimes see players not even try to use it once, and often just kinda think, "Why?" I fully understand not using it if they're losing, but if they're up a stock, at 150+, and their opponent is is at 60+, I just wonder, what have they really got to lose? Or even if it's the final stock for both players, and they have a huge percent lead. Of course, I don't mean just throw it out; I mean capitalizing on the opportunity when it presents itself. I remember watching EVO 2019, and came away thinking, "Tweek might have won if he had gone for it, or at the very least, shown Leo he wasn't afraid to use it." I think at the very least, he could have tried it game 3, when he was already up two games.

If you're smart about using Flare Blitz, you get to take one stock through more conventional means, and a second super early. I think that helps Pokemon Trainer be even more of a threat. Food for thought.

 

[SKX31]

I never understood what made Pikachu hard to play in comparison to other characters. He isn’t the only character with extended combo routes. If anything once you are used to using angles with the multitude of ways to use it, it’s speed and side b recovery is rather easy at that point. He has lacking range but a neutral tool that makes up for that, so what exactly is making him such a challenge to use?

I also agree the Pikachu is number one/not number one topic that gets dragged to death is far better focused on actually discussing his matchups (particularly with meta relevant characters). You can actually make ground on the topic with matchup discussion.

Since I see Tjolt brought up so often when people discuss why they can’t beat Pikachu I ask a question. What does your character have that lets them play around tjolt and how effective is it? What does your character do when Pikachu pancakes your shield? Are you able to do anything when he’s right next to you? I promise you that are not the only characters that flat out do not care about Tjolt and can keep up with Pikachu’s damage output.

I'll take a wild guess here:

The crux of the issue might be that Pikachu's difficult to optimize. Because the difference between one fair loop and two fair loops in the same combo is a solid 20-30 %, and thus the difference between someone like ESAM and a Local Pikachu accumulates during a match rather quickly. Next opportunity will have to be forced with a T Jolt / Grab / neutral win (not that those are bad options, but still agressive options). One can say the same is true for the difference between MKLeo's Joker and a Local Joker.

But with Palutena and Wario optimization becomes less noticeable because misses with those characters might not accumulate as fast. If a Local Palu drops a combo she can generally afford to force the issue elsewhere. Same kinda with Wario, especially with Waft.

As for Cloud vs Tjolt: Cloud can jump up a lot and aerial to cover most approach options - and there's Limit to take into account too. As the same time, Tjolt combined with the quick pressure allows the Pika to stop Limit charges and the Cloud has to be careful around the Tjolt in case the Pika mixes up the approach. Pancaking at shield generally = Climbhazzard, although it's one of the few options Cloud has that hit low. It's a problem Cloud has - he only has Climbhazzard and D tilt to hit Pika reliably up close.

I'd consider the overall matchup Pika-favored, +1 to +2 because Cloud does not have many get off me options to stop a Pika combo / edgeguard and Pika can retreat / recover safely in most circumstances (outside of Skull Bash being intercepted) - but a couple mistakes from the Pika means that the rat takes quite a lot of damage early. Limit helps Cloud survive - mostly due to the innate buff, but Limit Cross Slash and Climbhazzard are options Pika has to look out for. At the same time though, a Cloud without Limit does not survive vs. Pika's many gimps.

 

[SwagGuy99]

If we're talking about Pikachu's matchups, I'm going to give my thoughts on who I think does well against him.

Alright, so first lets start with the matchups that most people will agree that he loses or at least comes very close to losing: . No explanation needed on these ones, they all just outclass Pika in several important areas of the matchup or they possess certain qualities that make it difficult for Pikachu to enact his gameplan on.

I think he might lose to slightly as well, but I think Yoshi's neutral isn't as strong overall in the matchup and he's not nearly as good at dealing with t-jolt as those other 4 are. So while I think that he might beat Pikachu slightly, but it could be even as well.

So now for his even matchups.



Now, I'm being somewhat pessimistic here, I could see Pikachu beating some of these characters slightly. I personally think though that these characters all have strong tools against him, that are usually something along the lines of:

• Can win neutral against him at least semi-reliably
• Is able to approach Pikachu fairly well
• Has a higher damage output than him
• Can stuff out Pikachu's approaches
• Has tools to deal with t-jolt
• Can hit him despite him being both small and fast
• Can take stocks earlier than Pikachu can
• Doesn't have to worry too much about being edgeguarded by him

Obviously, there's more to each matchup than these smaller points I'm making here, but characters who posses at least a handful of those qualities I mentioned should be able to do well in the matchup. Looking at it from this perspective, I think that even if you want to think about this pessimistically like I am right now, having 4 to 5 losing matchups and having maybe 15 to 20 even matchups could still mean that Pikachu has the best matchup spread of any character. Just something to think about I guess.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

On Pika discussion, ESAM made this funny tweet

What if I told you that me saying Pikachu busted was an elaborate ruse to improve my branding and I don’t actually think Pikachu is top 3?

— ESAM (Stride Esports) (@imESAM) October 25, 2020

If he's telling the truth and this isn't some joke, this is pretty big brained.

 

[SwagGuy99]

On Pika discussion, ESAM made this funny tweet

What if I told you that me saying Pikachu busted was an elaborate ruse to improve my branding and I don’t actually think Pikachu is top 3?

— ESAM (Stride Esports) (@imESAM) October 25, 2020

If he's telling the truth and this isn't some joke, this is pretty big brained.

I think this is just a joke.

But if it isn't, then we've been played.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

I think this is just a joke.

But if it isn't, then we've been played.

Well don’t worry, cuz I won’t

Pika busted

— ESAM (Stride Esports) (@imESAM) October 25, 2020

ESAM bamboozled us not once but twice.

 

[KirbySquad101]

If we're talking about Pikachu's matchups, I'm going to give my thoughts on who I think does well against him.

Alright, so first lets start with the matchups that most people will agree that he loses or at least comes very close to losing: . No explanation needed on these ones, they all just outclass Pika in several important areas of the matchup or they possess certain qualities that make it difficult for Pikachu to enact his gameplan on.

I think he might lose to slightly as well, but I think Yoshi's neutral isn't as strong overall in the matchup and he's not nearly as good at dealing with t-jolt as those other 4 are. So while I think that he might beat Pikachu slightly, but it could be even as well.

So now for his even matchups.



Now, I'm being somewhat pessimistic here, I could see Pikachu beating some of these characters slightly. I personally think though that these characters all have strong tools against him, that are usually something along the lines of:

• Can win neutral against him at least semi-reliably
• Is able to approach Pikachu fairly well
• Has a higher damage output than him
• Can stuff out Pikachu's approaches
• Has tools to deal with t-jolt
• Can hit him despite him being both small and fast
• Can take stocks earlier than Pikachu can
• Doesn't have to worry too much about being edgeguarded by him

Obviously, there's more to each matchup than these smaller points I'm making here, but characters who posses at least a handful of those qualities I mentioned should be able to do well in the matchup. Looking at it from this perspective, I think that even if you want to think about this pessimistically like I am right now, having 4 to 5 losing matchups and having maybe 15 to 20 even matchups could still mean that Pikachu has the best matchup spread of any character. Just something to think about I guess.

That's the thing though, I think there are more than just 4 characters that have the edge over Pika like Envoy stated. Given previous results I feel like you could make a case for characters like and even being favored against Pikachu (I honestly think people REALLY overrate her problems with shorter characters, especially if her MUs against characters like Pichu and G&W are anything to go by).

 

[Ziodyne 21]

I

That's the thing though, I think there are more than just 4 characters that have the edge over Pika like Envoy stated. Given previous results I feel like you could make a case for characters like and even being favored against Pikachu (I honestly think people REALLY overrate her problems with shorter characters, especially if her MUs against characters like Pichu and G&W are anything to go by).

Wasn't the general consensus rhst ZSS issues with hitting short characters were mostly adressed in Ultimate? Maybe it just Marss very strong record vs ESAM that makes the MU seem favored towards ZSS.

Actullay that adressed. For as much as people say how good Pikacu's nair and bair now for killing I found that really good SDI is effective vs Pikachus multi hit airiels at higher percents

Going back to Marss vs ESAM. There was a set where Marss was still surviving Pikachus Nair's near the eldgeo well past 160% due to his good SDI ..and ZSS she ain't exactly heavy.

 

[Aaron1997]

Like his ledge trap game needed to be better...

TLDW: By placing a block around roll distance but not on the stage, Steve can Cover every ledge option by charging Down-smash and teching on the block if they get-up attack. You can Jump from ledge or double jump with a Aerial but steve can still react to it.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Wasn't the general consensus rhst ZSS issues with hitting short characters were mostly adressed in Ultimate? Maybe it just Marss very strong record vs ESAM that makes the MU seem favored towards ZSS.

Marss, Bankai, JeBB, and Juice all put Pikachu as -2 for ZSS. If there are any Zero Suit Samus mains or Pikachu mains around here I'd be interested in hearing what they think about the matchup.

 

[Ziodyne 21]

Marss, Bankai, JeBB, and Juice all put Pikachu as -2 for ZSS. If there are any Zero Suit Samus mains or Pikachu mains around here I'd be interested in hearing what they think about the matchup.

Well I can see why many think ZSS may have the advantage. ZSS is another character that does not have to fear thunderbolt much at all as she has the options to weave and maneuver around them. ZSS is just a very hard character to edeguard in general due to her many ways of recovering both high and low.

Plus. ZSS can kill Pika pretty early of she can land a good boost-kick or flip jump. I saw a Marss vs ESAM set where Pika died as early as 80-90% by landing the off a good read. ZSS likely has the advantage when it comes to taking stocks in the MU

 

[SwagGuy99]

So, I decided to make something because I wanted to see what the results ended up looking like. I decided to make a matchup chart using the opinions of other top and high level players (from 2020) to see how good it makes Pikachu look. There's a list of the players I used attached to this as a .txt if you want to see it. I primarily used this as a method to figure out which player I should use, although a handful of characters that use charts from players not listed on here due to the fact that they haven't made any. For the most part, I tried to avoid using charts from before characters were buffed, the only ones that do use ones from before their buffs are , , , and . If a character was placed between even and +1 or even and -1,I moved them into +1/-1 rather than give them their own tiers.

• Characters who were placed in +1/0 Pikachu's favor:
• Characters who were placed in 0/-1 the opponent's favor:

The Pikachu matchup chart

While the placings of certain characters is weird, for the most part this does seem to reflect the opinions of the players of a lot of characters fairly well.

Edit: Squirtle should say even in the .txt, I accidentally put it as +2 instead.

 

[Ziodyne 21]

Okay. The amount of players that put Pika as +2 or even higher advantage is kind of silly.

I don't see how Pikachu can be +2 on the likes of for example. +1 on some of the maybe, but these characters have some things that allow them to deal with Pika allright.


Even Joker. Who I can see Pika legit being one of his worst MU's. I can't see being worse than 1 or 1.5 in Pikas favor

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

Wait, huh? Pika is +1 against Ganondorf but Pika is +2 against Joker? That legit makes no sense. Ganondorf - Pikachu is absolutely awful. Joker - Pikachu isn't that bad, not only has Leo won twice against ESAM (Granted it's Leo) but so has Sharp's Joker.

In addition even ESAM thinks that while Pika wins, the matchup is very close and only a slight -1 being about a 55:45.

 

[Lacrimosa]

Hbox started making a tier-list:

 

[SwagGuy99]

Wait, huh? Pika is +1 against Ganondorf but Pika is +2 against Joker? That legit makes no sense. Ganondorf - Pikachu is absolutely awful. Joker - Pikachu isn't that bad, not only has Leo won twice against ESAM (Granted it's Leo) but so has Sharp's Joker.

In addition even ESAM thinks that while Pika wins, the matchup is very close and only a slight -1 being about a 55:45.

Rickles thinks it's not that bad for Ganon when compared to characters like Villager and Snake. Which I very much disagree with, but he is the best Ganon player, so that's what ended up on that list.

And Cloudy/Blade had is as one of Jokers worst matchups along with Sonic. If I wasn't trying to just use matchup charts and opinions from 2020, I would have used Leo's chart which had it as +1 in Pika's favor as opposed to +2.

 

[The_Bookworm]

Hbox started making a tier-list:

The list only covers bottom, low, and lower-mid tier so far.

Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I personally think should be ranked higher, but overall a solid start to the list.

 

[StrangeKitten]

vs is +1 or even, -favored. has to play differently, using a lot more Gun, Eiha, nair, and Rebel's Guard than usual, since that's the stuff that's gonna hit Pika reliably/deal with t jolts. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think it's quite as bad as -2 for . It can still be among Joker's worst matchups and be -1. Joker is a very good character, after all

 

[SKX31]

The list only covers bottom, low, and lower-mid tier so far.

Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I personally think should be ranked higher, but overall a solid start to the list.

He'll upload Mid Tier tomorrow, so we'll know the rest of the list soon.

That said, I quickly compared the start with his 8.1.0 tier list:

• moved up from Trash to Low.
• also moved up, from Low to Lower-Mid (not surprising).
• was Lower-Mid in his 8.1 tier list, but apparently higher up now.
• Several characters went down (his 8.1 Lower-Mid section was significantly smaller): . All of which were in True Mid previously, except for Byleth who was Mid-High.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

As others have said that a character can still be the best even if it isn't winning as much. We've talked in circles about how Pika's player representation is a lot lower than most characters. What those reasons are, who can be sure. Is it Pika is super difficult to play at peak levels? Is Pika just not fun for people in Ultimate? Again, who knows. I'd argue Pika is incredibly good and would be a bit naive to say otherwise. Do I think he's #1? I really can't say. For sure the character is top 5. Pika has most everything a character needs in Ulti to be the best or at least top 3. Pika just needs players to put in the work to 'prove it' as it were.

Is it funny one of the best characters doesn't win a lot? I mean, sure. Not 'ha ha' funny but more like 'huh, odd'. Again, not many people play Pika. No one will say Peach, Joker or Palu aren't top characters or in contention for top spot just because they might not win a lot of tournaments. With how varied this roster is, it seems a lot of folks are struggling to really stick with just any one character. A lot of counter picking happens or people are adamant in their main, regardless of their tier placements. Smash, for the first time since Melee, really feels like it has a strong need for having a pocket or playing around match ups more than ever.

Pikachu has been top tier without results to back it up since like Brawl. Part of it is the ESAM hype machine, but part of is that people don't really evaluate Pikachu's weaknesses fairly. Pikachu is almost always that character that is very strong in a vacuum but can't hang with the top tier characters. In Brawl ESAM claimed that Pikachu had an even match-up with Meta Knight but almost always lost to top MK players.

The character is dazzling and fast and frustrating and has options for everything and incredible disadvantage and pancakes... but his damage output is poor and he's light as well, which means that the numbers just aren't in his favor. It's like USF4 Yang, a character with an option for every situation and incredible combo versatility and theoretically very high damage in some circumstances, but with low health and low damage on incidental hits. Both of them need ideal circumstances for their best combo starters.

Pikachu is terrifying at low percents but the closer you are to death the less scary he becomes and the more scary you become to him with rage.

ESAM also does this thing where he determines a matchup is in his favor based on what happens in his best-case scenario. He'll casually mention things the other character has over Pikachu, but then basically be like "but all I have to do is not let those things happen and land a back air at 0"

He's a good character but I doubt he'll ever have the kind of success we believe he should be having... as usual.

 

[Ziodyne 21]

Pikachu has been top tier without results to back it up since like Brawl. Part of it is the ESAM hype machine, but part of is that people don't really evaluate Pikachu's weaknesses fairly. Pikachu is almost always that character that is very strong in a vacuum but can't hang with the top tier characters. In Brawl ESAM claimed that Pikachu had an even match-up with Meta Knight but almost always lost to top MK players.

The character is dazzling and fast and frustrating and has options for everything and incredible disadvantage and pancakes... but his damage output is poor and he's light as well, which means that the numbers just aren't in his favor. It's like USF4 Yang, a character with an option for every situation and incredible combo versatility and theoretically very high damage in some circumstances, but with low health and low damage on incidental hits. Both of them need ideal circumstances for their best combo starters.

Pikachu is terrifying at low percents but the closer you are to death the less scary he becomes and the more scary you become to him with rage.

ESAM also does this thing where he determines a matchup is in his favor based on what happens in his best-case scenario. He'll casually mention things the other character has over Pikachu, but then basically be like "but all I have to do is not let those things happen and land a back air at 0"

He's a good character but I doubt he'll ever have the kind of success we believe he should be having... as usual.

I think you kinda hit the nail on the head with ESAM's opinions. He says and judges his opinions in a sealed vacum whenever it suits him.

Like how in Smash 4 he said was not the best character in the game, or at least overated because you can SDI from her moves to avoid all the jank . Yes on paper that can be true ,but a player will require to have perfect ,optimal SDI ready EVERY time they are being hit by Bayonetta b, the would have to know exactly how to react and respond to everything. As we saw even by athe end Smash 4 competitve run the best players in the game could not acheive that level perfect SDI to get themselves out of Bayo's web., and with Smash 4 Bayo, even making the wrong mistake at the wrong time would lead to a potential 0-death scenario.

Heck if the best case-scenario happened all the time and all players were flawless execution robots. I think even post-patched may of ended up being the best character back in Smash 4

 

[Minix0]

The list only covers bottom, low, and lower-mid tier so far.

Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I personally think should be ranked higher, but overall a solid start to the list.

Lol I thought he put Ridley in bottom tier when I saw this. Guess it pays to watch it, eh?

 

[Thinkaman]

As for tiers, we should keep in mind that Weighter Matchups > Matchups > Theorycrafting & Observation > Results when it comes to making a tier list

"Matchups" as we talk about them in Smash is just theory dressing up in pseudo-scientific clothes. There's not even a consistent definition of what "+1" or "+2" means. The longer you're around, the less you take them seriously.

Virtually all effective balance efforts in successful eSports today are driven by usage numbers, followed distantly by win-rates, with theory only being used tertiarily as an attempt to explain confounded data.

Counterpoint: How good would Melee Jigglypuff be considered if Hungrybox mained Fox instead of Jigglypuff? She would still be just as good but her results would likely be lacking.

On some level, yes, Puff would not be as good if her outlier #1 player is removed from consideration.

This is because it is on some level meaningless to consider the character's performance as if played by imaginary players. But let's back up.


AFAIK we all adhere to Sirlin's "Bullseye Theory", which suggests that higher levels of players give us the most accurate information. I.E. there will be groups that think Ness is overpowered and ZSS is weak and groups that think ZSS is overpowered and Ness is weak. And you could watch either group and see group A's great ness beat up on their local ZSS, or group B's amazing ZSS wreck their local Ness. But the players with the most experience and skill to drive the game are going to be clustered "in the middle" of all these diverse narratives, and their play should be the most informative.

Some people pervert Bullseye Theory from "BestNess vs Marss is the most informative data" into "BestNess vs Marss is the only real truth." We can accept that their matches are 100x more insightful and "accurate" than matches of two randoms, while still acknowledging that aspects of their gameplay might be due to:

• Individual quirks of either player
• Specific matchup dynamics between this particular pair of players
• Dedicated time either player spent preparing for that specific opponent on that specific day
• Aspects of the game/characters/matchup only relevant to top 20 players for whatever reason

It's bad enough to take BestNess vs Marss as the one true gospel, and dismiss 99.99999% of players/data as superfolous. (Including everyone here) But some people go even farther and extrapolate to "hypothetical MKLeo's Ness vs. hypothetical MKLeo's ZSS." At which point they are dismissing 100% of players/data and only talking about an imaginary game being played in their head.

And yet some, usually without realizing it, go yet another step farther and fixate on some 20XX theorycraft matchup between a Ness and ZSS being played by a hypothetical player above MKLeo, a perfect player who doesn't exist and probably can't. This is well beyond dismissing 100% of players/data, and is so far removed from the reality we play our video game in that it has lost sight of the original "question" entirely.



The second big aspect of the Hungrybox-falls-in-the-woods question is the flawed assumption that removing HBox from the market has no influence on anyone else's behavior. You take HBox out of the history books (plus the hate HBox has earned for Puff), and it is overwhelmingly likely:

• Top players devote vastly less experience to fighting Puff
• Existing top players consider switching to Puff
• Existing Puffs perform far better with their less-known character
• Existing Puffs collect more donations and sponsorships than they did/do, which in our timeline all went to HBox
• Existing Puffs compete more heavily to be the #1 Puff
• Puffs performing better for any of the above reasons, and being encouraged to commit more fully to competitive Melee

In a more innovative case, we'd also have to factor in the leadership HBox provided to other Puffs, paving the way as an example of how to play. But, this particular case is an extreme example because HBox's Puff wasn't groundbreaking at all. Like, I play Melee Puff, and I assure you that I have learned absolutely nothing from HBox. He's just incredibly precise and consistent, in a mundane but impressive way.

(Additionally on this topic, we have a very simple and easy-to-buy explaination for Puff usage rates in Melee being artificially low: The sort of person attracted to competitive Melee in 2015+ didn't show up to play a non-technical, floaty, hit-and-run character based entirely on spacing. HBox's era of stalling creating a massive stigma against Puff in the newest generations of Melee players didn't help--in our timeline the Zain that plays Puff, well, didn't.)



At the end of the day, the game is just a bunch of 1s-and-0s. There is no underlying truth concealed in Pikachu's hitbox parameters. The game only exists as the manifestation of dynamics that occurs when we, actual humans, play it. The game is changed by altering the humans just as much as it is by altering the code. And accordingly, attempting to analyze the game by removing all humans from consideration is both impossible and pointless.

Required Reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html
(PROTIP: Press Esc the moment after NYT articles load to bypass the paywall.)

 

[The_Bookworm]

Like how in Smash 4 he said was not the best character in the game, or at least overated because you can SDI from her moves to avoid all the jank . Yes on paper that can be true ,but a player will require to have perfect ,optimal SDI ready EVERY time they are being hit by Bayonetta b, the would have to know exactly how to react and respond to everything. As we saw even by athe end Smash 4 competitve run the best players in the game could not acheive that level perfect SDI to get themselves out of Bayo's web., and with Smash 4 Bayo, even making the wrong mistake at the wrong time would lead to a potential 0-death scenario.

Heck if the best case-scenario happened all the time and all players were flawless execution robots. I think even post-patched may of ended up being the best character back in Smash 4

To be fair, his final tier lists in SSB4 did put Bayo as the best character. As a matter of fact, his description on why he thought Bayo was the best in his final tier list was "lol Bayo".
Then again, he is not particularly wrong.

In terms of his opinion on Bayo, I am personally not quite sure the timeline of his opinions on Bayo.
However, it is completely understandable why he did not quite jump on the "Bayo was the best train initially" if it was indeed some time after EVO 2017.

SSB4 Bayo was odd in the fact that it took until EVO 2017, over one year after her 1.1.6 nerfs, for her to be considered the best character again. From there, her metagame grew faster and faster.
Her rapidly advancing metagame, combined with the fact that she is an extremely unique character with a moveset + mechanics unlike anything we have seen before at the time, it was awkward to jump to any definitive conclusions about the character.
Even her pre-1.1.6 self, where she was clearly overpowered (granted that no Bayo main at the time capitalized on her broken attributes), people were still somewhat undecisive on her place in the meta.

Granted that this is easy to look back in retrospect and say: "Yes, Bayo was the best character in SSB4. Not sure why anyone would say otherwise."
However, she was essentially an alien that invaded the game with her very odd/unique, yet powerful, attributes and mechanics.

Pikachu has been top tier without results to back it up since like Brawl. Part of it is the ESAM hype machine, but part of is that people don't really evaluate Pikachu's weaknesses fairly. Pikachu is almost always that character that is very strong in a vacuum but can't hang with the top tier characters. In Brawl ESAM claimed that Pikachu had an even match-up with Meta Knight but almost always lost to top MK players.

The character is dazzling and fast and frustrating and has options for everything and incredible disadvantage and pancakes... but his damage output is poor and he's light as well, which means that the numbers just aren't in his favor. It's like USF4 Yang, a character with an option for every situation and incredible combo versatility and theoretically very high damage in some circumstances, but with low health and low damage on incidental hits. Both of them need ideal circumstances for their best combo starters.

Pikachu is terrifying at low percents but the closer you are to death the less scary he becomes and the more scary you become to him with rage.

ESAM also does this thing where he determines a matchup is in his favor based on what happens in his best-case scenario. He'll casually mention things the other character has over Pikachu, but then basically be like "but all I have to do is not let those things happen and land a back air at 0"

He's a good character but I doubt he'll ever have the kind of success we believe he should be having... as usual.

You pretty much nailed it with this comment.
However, there is something (relatively unrelated to Ultimate Pikachu) that I want to correct and share my opinion on.

I do believe that was legitimately borderline busted character in that game, and the second-best version of the character.
The character had almost everything.

• An amazing approach/disruption tool with Quick Attack Canceling (QAC). This technique also ensures mindgames and near unpunishable situations. QAC into nair is an extremely difficult thing to deal with.
• Thunder Jolt to hold space, similar to its SSB4 and Ultimate versions.
• A huge, disjointed grab range that extends far beyond Pikachu's hands.
• Not one, but two chainthrows, that even has a 0-death combo on fastfallers.
• The most broken version of Thunder. The thunderbolt has 2000 years of hitbox duration. When it hits itself with the thunderbolt, Pika is put in a near lagless state with a long hitbox duration (with strong knockback). The thundercloud has much more range and doesn't spike, meaning that you can get early percent KOs. Also, Pika can stall offstage for 200 years with this move. This move was pretty nuts.
• The usual strengths of being short, nimble on the ground, and a strong disadvantage state.

The character does have the usual issues of being being light and short-reached.
I also do find his aerial game to be rather awkward, mostly due to the fact that the character has a lot of multi-hit aerial usage in a game where SDI is so powerful.
The character also has a few issues KO'ing, but the character can also randomly KO you at almost percents, whether it would be getting hit with Thunder near the top blastzone (which is a lot easier than it sounds), the character could infinite jab lock you with jab or QAC, and his forward smash lacks as huge of a sourspot as in future games while being powerful.

So the question is: why isn't the character used more?
Two simple answers:

1. Unlike Ultimate and (to a lesser extent) SSB4 Pikachu, Brawl Pikachu was a legitimately mechanically difficult character to play. QAC is a pretty difficult technique to pull off, especially to do consistently. The 0-deaths and chaingrabbing potential involves good mechanical usage and good awareness on where the character is going.
2. This version of Pikachu exists in a game with busted top tiers, a lot of which are notably easier to play (at least in terms of skill floor), and can keep them in Pika's toes. Olimar in particular was a very tricky matchup. Pika does do very well against Snake and Falco though. Pikachu is ranked 8th in the official tier list, which is very high still, but the other top tiers are also busted in their own right.

ESAM is, however, easily top 10 in the world in Brawl, as he tackles Pikachu's mechanical hurdles with an iron fist.
There is a reason why the 2013-2014 era of Brawl was the peak of ESAM's Smash career: this version of Pikachu was extremely nutty.

As for , the character was once considered top tier, even being ranked 5th in the first official tier list. While ESAM was popping off during the early days of SSB4, he wasn't quite as dominant as in Brawl.
The reason why SSB4 Pikachu was considered top tier in early meta is actually quite similar to Ultimate Pika's current position: potential, theorycrafting, and the whole "Pika busted" propaganda.
As the meta settled, Pika eventually dropped out of top tier in the public eye into a solid high tier, where he currently is today. This is one of the main reasons why I think Ultimate Pika is simply a repeat of this.

The character does have some mechanically tricky stuff (up throw into Thunder comes to mind), but he overall lost the vast majority of the things that made him ridiculous in Brawl, and the sauce obtained in Ultimate is still nowhere near as saucy.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

You pretty much nailed it with this comment.
However, there is something (relatively unrelated to Ultimate Pikachu) that I want to correct and share my opinion on.

I do believe that was legitimately borderline busted character in that game, and the second-best version of the character.
The character had almost everything.

I don't want to respond to everything here individually but you thought about this a lot so I wanted to give you the respect of an answer. I'll do my best.

With due respect I think you're sort of making the same mistake ESAM does, which is to list all of the character's strengths only vaguely relative to the characters near them and conclude that he's obviously very good.

Characters can only be ranked next to the characters around them and while theorycraft is helpful and I'm all for it, Brawl was played competitively for years with one of the world's best players leading his charge and those strengths simply never converted to results we'd expect from a super broken character with a 50-50 MK matchup.

I felt the same way about Marth, who like never won anything (even like regionals where the best Marth players were present) but got a bunch of top 8s and was somehow ranked 5th at certain points along characters like Diddy Kong and Snake and stuff. Meanwhile ZSS who actually won a major and was a top 8 threat in the most competitive regions at the time still had a bunch of folks putting her in like C tier because you could theoretically mess with her recovery. I think at the end of Brawl's lifespan ZSS had one of the best records against high level MK up there with like Fox and whatever.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this into a Brawl discussion. My point is just that there's a meta surrounding the character strengths in a vacuum and that character's place in the meta is an important consideration for tiers. Despite using him to make a different point earlier, USF4 Yang is actually a good example again here. He's theoretically just okay and due to having low damage and stun output and being really frail himself, but because pixie characters with good ground games and high burst were so prevalent in that game and Yang was so good against that archetype, he was a really competitive character who won a few majors (with Mago at the helm). Somehow though, folks in the west still put him in like B tier because he did low damage.

 

[The_Bookworm]

I don't want to respond to everything here individually but you thought about this a lot so I wanted to give you the respect of an answer. I'll do my best.

With due respect I think you're sort of making the same mistake ESAM does, which is to list all of the character's strengths only vaguely relative to the characters near them and conclude that he's obviously very good.

Characters can only be ranked next to the characters around them and while theorycraft is helpful and I'm all for it, Brawl was played competitively for years with one of the world's best players leading his charge and those strengths simply never converted to results we'd expect from a super broken character with a 50-50 MK matchup.

I felt the same way about Marth, who like never won anything (even like regionals where the best Marth players were present) but got a bunch of top 8s and was somehow ranked 5th at certain points along characters like Diddy Kong and Snake and stuff. Meanwhile ZSS who actually won a major and was a top 8 threat in the most competitive regions at the time still had a bunch of folks putting her in like C tier because you could theoretically mess with her recovery. I think at the end of Brawl's lifespan ZSS had one of the best records against high level MK up there with like Fox and whatever.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this into a Brawl discussion. My point is just that there's a meta surrounding the character strengths in a vacuum and that character's place in the meta is an important consideration for tiers. Despite using him to make a different point earlier, USF4 Yang is actually a good example again here. He's theoretically just okay and due to having low damage and stun output and being really frail himself, but because pixie characters with good ground games and high burst were so prevalent in that game and Yang was so good against that archetype, he was a really competitive character who won a few majors (with Mago at the helm). Somehow though, folks in the west still put him in like B tier because he did low damage.

To be fair, I do think 8th in the tier list is where I personally put Pikachu (either 8th-9th next to ZSS).
Brawl in general simply had crazy top tiered characters.

Btw, ZSS was only considered C tier near the beginning of Brawl. As time went on, she pretty much shot up the tier list and is universally considered a top 9 character. She is another nutty character.

Shoutouts to the fact that ZSS managed to be top 10 for all three of her official appearances.
I don't think any other character in the series has this distinction. She is such a fundamentally powerful character.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

To be fair, I do think 8th in the tier list is where I personally put Pikachu (either 8th-9th next to ZSS).
Brawl in general simply had crazy top tiered characters.

Btw, ZSS was only considered C tier near the beginning of Brawl. As time went on, she pretty much shot up the tier list and is universally considered a top 9 character. She is another nutty character.

Shoutouts to the fact that ZSS managed to be top 10 for all three of her official appearances.
I don't think any other character in the series has this distinction. She is such a fundamentally powerful character.

Those tier list positions were an average. There were still a lot of BBR members putting her in mid tier because they felt no one was playing the matchup correctly and that ZSS was succeeding more or less based on gimmicks, match-up inexperience, and surprise factor. In fact, that was the reason she was 9th instead of the top 6 she's considered by many folks still playing Brawl (especially in Japan she's considered super strong).

After the final BBR tier list came out, a lot of folks released their votes and one guy in particular (who I won't call out here) had her literally in C tier.

When the game was released I think she was like below Zelda. lol

Anyway I play Samus in this game because I don't like how ZSS plays and find her to be much more similar to how the ZSS of old wanted to play. I don't think ZSS in Ultimate is very fun unfortunately, especially in the online age. Landing nair online is so difficult for me anyway.

 

[Ziodyne 21]

To be fair, I do think 8th in the tier list is where I personally put Pikachu (either 8th-9th next to ZSS).
Brawl in general simply had crazy top tiered characters.

Btw, ZSS was only considered C tier near the beginning of Brawl. As time went on, she pretty much shot up the tier list and is universally considered a top 9 character. She is another nutty character.

Shoutouts to the fact that ZSS managed to be top 10 for all three of her official appearances.
I don't think any other character in the series has this distinction. She is such a fundamentally powerful character.

There have been some veterans that have been have more playable appearances that have been top 10 in the final tier lists in all but one game. Even then it can be said they were either top or the top of high due to the growing roster of each game

Pikachu:

• 1st in Smash 64
• 9th in Meele
• 8th in Brawl
• 15th in SSB4.

While its certaintly arguable that Pikachu is the best character in Ultimate like most of the pro smash community likes to say, its harder to argue he is not at least top 10.

Fox :

• 2nd in 64
• 1st in Melee
• 14th in Brawl
• 7-8th in SSB4 (tied with Sonic)

In Ultimate Fox is considered top 10 or 15 at worst..

Marth:

• 3rd in Melee
• 5th in Brawl
• 11-12th in SSB4 (tied with Ryu)

Ultimate is where Marth has fallen both to how his sourspots overalp his tipper sweetspots isntead of vice-versa and Ultimates faster engine not doing his playstyle any favors, and even with the buffs he got in 7.0.0 i dont think he is considered better than mid-tier .


ZSS is a pretty unique case is because she ended up top 10 in all the games she was in despite her playstlye (and the factors that make her so strong) changing with each title Well other than being really fast and mobile which is genrally a big strength in any Smash game

In Brawl she stated each round with throwable 4 items , which speaks for itself

In Smash 4 it was hear early death ladder combos that could really get janky with rage.

In Ultimate her neutral and toolkit has been improved to be stronger and more oppressive than its ever been, plus she just benefits really well from Ultimate's game engine

 

[Das Koopa]

It's worth noting that (I dunno if this would rustle feathers?) Brawl interpretation by a Smashboards backroom were probably woefully biased in favor of America. Choco was a top level player in Japan at that time with Zero Suit Samus and regularly took sets off of people who were really good, which is one of many reasons why the decentralizing of tier list discussion is a good thing.

 

[SwagGuy99]

In fact, that was the reason she was 9th instead of the top 6 she's considered by many folks still playing Brawl (especially in Japan she's considered super strong).

Japan always has had a bit of a higher opinion of ZSS it feels like, and I guess that's been around since Brawl. Which is unsurprising since her kit allows her to play very safe and non-committal which is going to be extremely good Japan's meta which seems to be more defensive overall.

Shoutouts to the fact that ZSS managed to be top 10 for all three of her official appearances.
I don't think any other character in the series has this distinction. She is such a fundamentally powerful character.

Closest I can think of is who's been a solid high tier since Brawl (at least I think he's still a high tier in Ultimate, although that opinion seems to be becoming less common).

Speaking of , I never really understood why opinions of him have fallen so hard from Smash 4. He didn't really get changed too much in the transition and the changes he got (while minor) were mostly a mixed bag. F-smash lost it's potential for early kills in exchange for a better vertical hitbox. His aerials gained less landing lag and b-air also gained additional combo potential. Back throw is weaker and spin attack is better OOS. He also got some minor changes to his frame data and range on a handful of moves but nothing major. For the most part, Toon Link is the same character he was in Smash 4. I could see an argument for the game's engine having affected him negatively, and while I don't think he benefits from everyone else being faster, I do think he benefits quite a bit from having lower landing lag on aerials.

I think part of the reason behind him falling off (at least in terms of results) is due to the presence of who (after 7.0) seems to be near-universally considered the better character in the US (I know Japan thinks more highly of Toon Link). Both characters are somewhat fast (Toon Link is faster but floatier) but Young Link does have better aggressive tools and close range options, which I think makes him more appealing to a lot of players.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Japan always has had a bit of a higher opinion of ZSS it feels like, and I guess that's been around since Brawl. Which is unsurprising since her kit allows her to play very safe and non-committal which is going to be extremely good Japan's meta which seems to be more defensive overall.

Generally speaking defensive play is better. After all, fighting games of any kind (even Melee) are just inherently defensive games. Even Guilty Gear, which literally punishes you for playing too defensively, is primarily a defensive title.

You can attempt to design around that fact, but ultimately overcommitment is how folks lose and patience is how you win. Thus if Japan's meta is more defensive, I would imagine that if they're not better at the game right now, they could potentially pull ahead in the future.

It's harder to optimize a defensive meta but they tend to win out over more aggressive versions of the meta.

 

[The_Bookworm]

Speaking of , I never really understood why opinions of him have fallen so hard from Smash 4. He didn't really get changed too much in the transition and the changes he got (while minor) were mostly a mixed bag. F-smash lost it's potential for early kills in exchange for a better vertical hitbox. His aerials gained less landing lag and b-air also gained additional combo potential. Back throw is weaker and spin attack is better OOS. He also got some minor changes to his frame data and range on a handful of moves but nothing major. For the most part, Toon Link is the same character he was in Smash 4. I could see an argument for the game's engine having affected him negatively, and while I don't think he benefits from everyone else being faster, I do think he benefits quite a bit from having lower landing lag on aerials.

I think part of the reason behind him falling off (at least in terms of results) is due to the presence of who (after 7.0) seems to be near-universally considered the better character in the US (I know Japan thinks more highly of Toon Link). Both characters are somewhat fast (Toon Link is faster but floatier) but Young Link does have better aggressive tools and close range options, which I think makes him more appealing to a lot of players.

To give out the best explanation: he didn't change much from SSB4.
But that is the issue. He didn't change much from SSB4, while the vast majority of the cast ranked below him in SSB4 got better.
The reintroduction of Young Link and Snake did not help matters.
Toon Link was already an unpopular character in the USA in SSB4, but now we have these new shiny options that are widely considered to be superior to Toon Link, and now you see Toon Link's dilemma here.
It also doesn't help that Toon Link has a few inconsistencies, such as the poor back air hitbox (which has since then been fixed) and aerial Spin Attack having issues at times connecting. We all know how the Smash community feels about characters with an inconsistent multi-hit.

 

[Lacrimosa]

The list only covers bottom, low, and lower-mid tier so far.

Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I personally think should be ranked higher, but overall a solid start to the list.

Part 2 is out:

Mid:
Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I have to say, I think I might misunderstand the concept of a tier-list but why is a character like IC so low when they are represented by a Top 50 PGR player?
Or am I thinking that results should be the main point for a tier list, especially when the meta around existing characters is already fairly developed? Like, I feel like results should gain more and more weight the further in we get but then I see a tier-list like this one and says "Nope".

 

[Das Koopa]

Ice Climbers are a deeply dysfunctional character that have some of the worst depth of results of any character in the game. If people agree ESAM is a noteworthy outlier for Pikachu, Big D is a massive outlier for Ice Climbers. A collection of a few data points

-Ice Climbers have one of the worst comp weighted average placements in the game, at 70, with Big D's results. The other 4 used for the project were all Japanese and the only notable alt pick is probably Salva, who is rarely active and didn't have enough data to be used.

-They score at nearly half the mean average for hidden boss count, at 0.7% where the avg hidden boss count was 16.21 (roughly 1.3%-1.4%). They are very low on national representation, with only 5 reps having qualified for orionRank in the Jan 1st 2019-March 15th 2020 period.

-They fare far worse at the regional level. While they hit 0.6% at national level player at 0.7% in hidden bosses among repped characters, they are in the 70s at regional rep, comprising only 0.3% of PR'd player across 250+ rankings taken from every active superregion.

-They score at a tied 50th for upsets, with no real depth beyond the 5 designated Climber mains used for the projects. Upsets were split relatively evenly between Big D, Nikukyu, Harasen, and Daiki - no upsets were from outside of the scarce top 5 used as the basis for the comp weighted average, meaning these upsets - while good - don't represent a deep hidden boss streak from the Japanese set of players.

These data points are just going to reflect people's lack of confidence in the character rather than act as definitive proof that they're objectively bad or unusuable; however, Smash Bros. has a long history of people refining poor characters in a way that allows them to compete at high level play in spite of their character's flaws. The above stats also indicate potential for matchup experience is among the worst possible, as it means most regions lack a suitably skilled Ice Climber player, which may make people more upset prone - which may explain why non-Big D Ice Climber upsets are so weighted against otherwise very poor avg placements.

There are other important factors. The modern post-Melee infrastructure exploded with Smash 4 rather than Brawl, where Ice Climbers were cut. This presents a multi-year buffer for former Ice Climber mains to transition fully into new characters, which is exactly what happened. Vinnie, NAKAT, and 9B chased other characters entirely in Smash 4. Even if two of them weren't retired or largely inactive, it seems unlikely they'd return to Ice Climbers since much of the appeal of the character was grounded in their status as a near-Meta Knight competitor with the best explosivity of any character in the series.

As a result, much of the current playerbase never knew Ice Climbers on a deeply competitive level, and those who did either had to play new characters for 4 years or stopped engaging in matchup dynamics for 4 years since the character stopped existing. Ice Climbers coming back neutered after 4 years means there's no incentive to learn the MU and no incentive to play them unless you want an at best technical-but-dysfunctional mid tier experience. Some players are fine with this, but the vast majority have no interest.

 

[SKX31]

Part 2 is out:

Mid:
Lower-Mid:
Low:
Trash:

I have to say, I think I might misunderstand the concept of a tier-list but why is a character like IC so low when they are represented by a Top 50 PGR player?
Or am I thinking that results should be the main point for a tier list, especially when the meta around existing characters is already fairly developed? Like, I feel like results should gain more and more weight the further in we get but then I see a tier-list like this one and says "Nope".

Hungrybox went into the same kind of stuff as Das Koopa (that he can't see ICs as lower than Mid, nor higher until we see more of what ICs can actually do real time), he also opined that there's always the risk of a missed input / slipped finger dropping a combo despite the immense potential, and because SoPo, yeah, he's not optimistic on that.

Okay, so compared to his 8.1 list again:

• As stated last post, went up to Mid.
• A couple characters went down: , , , and were all in Mid-High in his 8.1 list.
• However, quite a few characters also went up: , and were considered Mid in his 8.1 list.

Also, HBox apparently goofed and put into True Mid without mentioning him a single second. (26:20 in the video). Maybe Jr. is still True Mid by the time later videos come around, but he could be higher too.

 

[KirbySquad101]

How big were 's changes in this patch? Everyone has been pining for bug fixes (which seemed to be what they adjusted here), but I don't know the full scope of it.

Dash attack buffs look like they could hold a potentially big impact. Dash attacks are usually an effective way of mitigating characters's issues with having less than ideal mobility traits, if characters like Min Min or Snake are anything to go by.

 

[Nathan Richardson]

Er can someone tell me why squirtle goes even with pikachu. Pikachu has actual zoning in thunderjolt and thunder, has better speed and frame data on the ground and in the air, has a better recovery in quick attack, and you know, has an actual kill setup in uthrow to thunder.