Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Nah, Pikachu loses -1.
Chain-grab makes it almost even, but MK spaces soooo much better in the MU.
Chain-grab makes it almost even, but MK spaces soooo much better in the MU.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Official BBR Matchup Chart v1.0
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
- Status
Juushichi
sugoi ~ sugoi ~
That's not what ESAM said and I believe ESAM so 0 MU. Most even MU in the game.
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
lol, ESAM hard overrates Pika's MUs. It should be -1, but Pika is still one of the better characters against MK.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I've said this before and I'll say it again, if people really believed that there was a single character who went even with MK, people would actually learn that character (especially considering its Pikachu, who also does well against Snake and Falco).
Unless the Brawl community is really so shallow as to ban a character that they can't beat without trying the most obvious solution to beating it...
Alternatives are:
a) Pikachu does go even with MK, but for some reason few people have decided to use Pikachu and/or they have all failed for some reason.
b) Pikachu doesn't go even with MK, the people who believed otherwise and tried using Pika found out they were wrong.
Unless the Brawl community is really so shallow as to ban a character that they can't beat without trying the most obvious solution to beating it...
Alternatives are:
a) Pikachu does go even with MK, but for some reason few people have decided to use Pikachu and/or they have all failed for some reason.
b) Pikachu doesn't go even with MK, the people who believed otherwise and tried using Pika found out they were wrong.
Ussi
Smash Legend
I was simply stating what's on the new MU chart
honestly I think Pikachu's MU's are irrelevant. Because its either ESAM or the MU isn't really seen otherwise.
Why would Pikachu lose to Lucario?
Ussi
Smash Legend
Loses to IC and G&W still too. Oilmar is -2, rest are -1
Pika loses to Lucario cause aura + range. Lucarios gotta stop dying at 120% to Pikachu though
Cassio
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,185
This was a rather dumb statement. You could say the same exact thing or worse about Ike or virtually any other character.
Why are you releasing so much information anyways when its a few days from release?
I believe I said earlier in this topic that if anyone went even with MK it'd be Pikachu. And the only reason more people don't pick up Pikachu to counter MK is because he's not an easy character to use at all imo. This would certainly explain why there are almost no top pikachus.
I don't see how any other character could make a case about going even with MK provided we are talking about any stage, not just neutrals.
I don't see how any other character could make a case about going even with MK provided we are talking about any stage, not just neutrals.
Ussi
Smash Legend
Well for Ike, it's San or Ryo or it's irrelevant. But anyways, just cause I think that, doesn't mean all of sudden Pika's MUs mean nothing.
I have too much free time :x
I'll be quiet now.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
So you think that Pikachu might go even with MK. Pikachu, who also does well against Snake and Falco, and doesn't lose too badly to the rest of top tier.
The only character who goes even with the most notorious character in Smash history, the only character to actually be banned at tournaments.
And the reason that NO ONE wins in the MU is because... Pikachu is too hard?
I don't buy it.
Steam
Smash Hero
that and none of pikachu's CG shenanigans work on him. and having a FCAS can limit pikachu's use of thunderjolt very well :0
Z'zgashi
Smash Legend
Im thoroughly disappointed that MK is apparently going to stay as a -2 for Yoshi. I WISH it was -2.
Aw well, having no -3s or -4s is cool I guess lol.
Aw well, having no -3s or -4s is cool I guess lol.
Doc King
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,790
C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
Steam
Smash Hero
@Zz- yeah... MKs matchups have always been horribly undersold... like how he had a +2 agaisnt mario... and DK.... and D3.... lol
no, go away.
Not until the 26th at earliest :/ I was silly and forgot to consider that making a gigantic thread takes time when I said around christmas lol.
Basically what I think about Pika vs MK
Although I will say that from reading their discussion and what I've observed in videos, Pikachu does do a good job of exploiting MK's weak aerial mobility with early thunder kills, and is also pretty good at avoiding some of MK's stronger traits (juggling, edgeguarding). A 0 was warranted enough through their discussion imo and it seemed like most people there agreed to it, so... yep.
Cassio
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,185
My bad I misinterpreted what you said. Although I still disagree somewhat.
I think you have to consider that sometimes the proficiency requirements are too much for practical purposes for a certain level of success. Like, maybe not even just weeks or months, but potentially years. At least thats the true trend with most pikas who have seen success, and theres certainly been precedence for these sorts of characters.
Grim Tuesday said:
although my idea of the solution is different
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
You don't need to practice for years to learn the Pikachu vs. MK match-up unless you are bad...
Cassio
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,185
You have to be good with pikachu first before that can even become relevant. Im not saying its definitely true, but the evidence to support that statement is pretty clear.
Also I think if you invalidate one of pikas MUs that way then you pretty much have to disregard all high level success of pika when discussing any of his MUs, and at that point he may as well not even be top tier.
Also I think if you invalidate one of pikas MUs that way then you pretty much have to disregard all high level success of pika when discussing any of his MUs, and at that point he may as well not even be top tier.
It was pathetic how they got -2 too.
I'm almost interested to know how they kept it as -2.
It went to a final panel that resolves disputes since there was no consensus, and the majority vote on that panel went to +/-2. A lot of MUs had no consensus and were resolved this way, which was pretty unfortunate imo, but what else can ya do :/
Browny
Smash Hater
omgawd totally cant wait for the outcome months of headaches and hundreds, if not thousands of hours of BBR work to make a chart that changes nothing and majority of players will ignore since they dont agree with it, and the reasons are hidden for the public.
Yo, we're actually writing out reasonings behind the match-ups this cycle. ._.
Maharba the Mystic
Smash Master
thank god! so how much longer damn it?! all i want for christmas is to see this damn thing before i go to sleep and you all keep not releasing it
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
You can stop now, I got plenty of salt for my popcorn.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
I miss the days where you werent just a dried out husk of a BBR troll. Back when you made legitamate posts that I enjoyed reading.
Cassio
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,185
Totally dude. In fact Im surprised anyone can find this 500 page thread to begin with given how ignored it was.
Except that we didnt have many disputes anyways.They probably agreed for the Pikas because no one wants to argue against brick walls.
iirc the yoshis themselves werent even uniform about wanting -3.
Browny
Smash Hater
lol you guys still think I honestly care about this. I stopped caring about getting into the BBR in 2009 guys.
These 500 pages are full of people disagreeing, or to look at it another way, ignoring the actual chart and discussing why things are the way they think they are. The chart could never exist and the thread called 'official matchup discussion thread' and it would be identical. Do you not see that? The chart serves as a reference point only, but everyone ignores it and uses their own reference point, as per their personal experiences.
If you guys are honestly going to be releasing all the justification, then THANK GOD FOR THAT. Not doing it for the first chart was a colossal mistake and has wasted everyones time into the tens of thousands of hours collective. This chart might actually be useful now, since no longer is a seemingly arbitrary -1, +2 etc a reference point, now we might have multiple pages of legitimate, informed discussion (ie; everything this thread isnt) to base our opinions off.
It still takes far too long though, for something that changes nothing. I see no reason why this takes so long, you could have done 2 iterations to get it to version 3, in the time it takes you to get to version 2. If you take long to consider everything and try to get it right as much as possible, thats a futile excersise, things change and you cant ever predict future matchup trends. Would get closer to an accurate representation of the game, if you iterated this chart every 6 months or so, that way you can correct the new mistakes as you make them, twice as fast instead of the public having to refer to some very outdated chart.
These 500 pages are full of people disagreeing, or to look at it another way, ignoring the actual chart and discussing why things are the way they think they are. The chart could never exist and the thread called 'official matchup discussion thread' and it would be identical. Do you not see that? The chart serves as a reference point only, but everyone ignores it and uses their own reference point, as per their personal experiences.
If you guys are honestly going to be releasing all the justification, then THANK GOD FOR THAT. Not doing it for the first chart was a colossal mistake and has wasted everyones time into the tens of thousands of hours collective. This chart might actually be useful now, since no longer is a seemingly arbitrary -1, +2 etc a reference point, now we might have multiple pages of legitimate, informed discussion (ie; everything this thread isnt) to base our opinions off.
It still takes far too long though, for something that changes nothing. I see no reason why this takes so long, you could have done 2 iterations to get it to version 3, in the time it takes you to get to version 2. If you take long to consider everything and try to get it right as much as possible, thats a futile excersise, things change and you cant ever predict future matchup trends. Would get closer to an accurate representation of the game, if you iterated this chart every 6 months or so, that way you can correct the new mistakes as you make them, twice as fast instead of the public having to refer to some very outdated chart.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I've learnt a lot about this game from the discussions I have read over the last 500 pages, no complaints from me.
Browny
Smash Hater
quite right grim, now tell me. Would you have learnt any less, if the chart in the OP had every square replaced by a ?
my problem with this is the sheer amount of time between updates, when many of these matchups have been declared 'wrong' since day 1, but apparently we are forced to live with it for almost 10 months. instead of the BBR spending say, 2,000 hours and 10 months to update the chart in one big shot, it should be 2 lots of 1,000 hour, 5 month intervals. Same amount of work input with a more relevant and accurate chart for many more months of the year.
If they make a mistake with the 5 month interval chart, it doesnt matter, since it will be corrected in 6 months. This is not countered by simply not making mistakes in a 10 month interval, because that is IMPOSSIBLE and potentially more inaccurate as older data is considered instead of erasing everything that is less than 6 months old.
this threads length, and the amount of time discussing ratios which have had no relevance since 2010, is just... amazing. in a bad way.
my problem with this is the sheer amount of time between updates, when many of these matchups have been declared 'wrong' since day 1, but apparently we are forced to live with it for almost 10 months. instead of the BBR spending say, 2,000 hours and 10 months to update the chart in one big shot, it should be 2 lots of 1,000 hour, 5 month intervals. Same amount of work input with a more relevant and accurate chart for many more months of the year.
If they make a mistake with the 5 month interval chart, it doesnt matter, since it will be corrected in 6 months. This is not countered by simply not making mistakes in a 10 month interval, because that is IMPOSSIBLE and potentially more inaccurate as older data is considered instead of erasing everything that is less than 6 months old.
this threads length, and the amount of time discussing ratios which have had no relevance since 2010, is just... amazing. in a bad way.
- Status