Official BBR Matchup Chart v1.0

[John12346]

Keep in mind that, assuming the 5-starter stage list, MK can force BF, Yoshi's or Lylat/PS1 on the first round, which heavily interferes with the characters that need the flatter, less platform induced stages to beat MK.

It doesn't even help that the matchups for these alleged 0 characters because they are only EVEN on MK's WORST stage; FD.

And it helps even less that MK always bans FD...

 

[Seagull Joe]

Well Wario stands a chance on MKs CP. but the list after him is very very short.

Wolf stands a chance on all neutrals, Lylat, Ps1, Halberd, Delfino, Pictochat, Japes and Castle Siege.

On Rainbow Cruise he is pretty much ****ed. Brinstar if you learn it REALLY well then you can beat Mk, but I myself hate that stage. Frigate is ok. It isn't bad and Wolf stands a chance on it.

Not sure how the other "even" or -1 characters are, but that's from a Wolf user's point of view.

 

[Chuee]

G&W also does pretty well against MK on CPs.
I actually see good GWs CP RC against MK

 

[etecoon]

GAW is the only character that I'd rather not fight on brinstar as MK, I guess wario does ok too but GAW is the only one that I really feel flips the CP situation, rather go to a neutral against him

 

[Orion*]

orion, you know and i know m2k was playing really, really stupid that first game. he was just balls-to-the-wall offense, which ddd is incredibly good at deflecting and punishing. game three was a bit better, but the fact that i think i would've won without an LGL means he wasn't quite there. wario v. ddd isn't any worse because i lost to malcolm, it's still a bad matchup that i'm just bad at.

that's neither here nor there--the point is, i may have done that, but i had to switch off ddd and go wario against tantalus. why? because he knows the matchup very well and continuously beats me in it. when the MK knows the matchup, it's doneskies.

I honestly didnt see/watch the matches.

But you dont 3 stock the best mk in a mu that he knows that well and its a HARD COUNTER.

Do I think metaknight solidly wins vs d3, yes. But I dont think it's some near unwinnable mu that I feel like D3 mains cry about. You are putting D3 into a class with like, low tiers when he CLEARLY doesnt do THAT bad.

GAW is the only character that I'd rather not fight on brinstar as MK, I guess wario does ok too but GAW is the only one that I really feel flips the CP situation, rather go to a neutral against him

if you arent afraid of them having a snake or something haldberd is good idea vs gaw imo

large FD + platform to camp under + scrooging sometimes + they die to upB mad early

I've never done in tourny yet but, theory craft CP da bess

 

[Inferno3044]

Why aren't panelists for each character listed in the initial post?

I'm wondering the same thing. I can only speak about Mario because he is a character I really know, but I highly doubt any of us had any say in this.

 

[Coney]

I honestly didnt see/watch the matches.

But you dont 3 stock the best mk in a mu that he knows that well and its a HARD COUNTER.

Do I think metaknight solidly wins vs d3, yes. But I dont think it's some near unwinnable mu that I feel like D3 mains cry about. You are putting D3 into a class with like, low tiers when he CLEARLY doesnt do THAT bad.

why is it so clear? i can't think of any times a ddd of note has beaten an MK of note in tournament in the past...year maybe? certainly not since i've been around the scene. it simply doesn't happen. i agree it might not be THAT bad, but it's much worse than ddd's -2 matchups, so the logical course of action is to make it a -3.

 

[solecalibur]

Guys. guys. Guys.

The reason ZSS is bad is because she has absolutely no way to approach a shield without getting punished.

As more people realize this her matchups will shift down.

Spoiler

Unless majors keep getting hosted on LCDs.

/facepalm
we talked about this a year ago on zss boards

 

[Spelt]

Oh. What a major inconvenience that not everyone visits the zss boards.

For shame, general public. For shame!

 

[NickRiddle]

Oh. What a major inconvenience that not everyone visits the zss boards.

For shame, general public. For shame!

You forget the part where he's talking to another ZSS player.

 

[Spelt]

not all zss players necessarily talk on the zss forums.

 

[OverLade]

Dedede has absolutely no chance against Metaknight. If you wait for him to approach and tornado he has no option that beats him. Outside of learning to outspace him, that's all you have to do. Camp and Tornado. He can't punish your nado if he shields it (that's his only option against it from a run) and you can do it again if he runs at you again. Imo most MK players are just ****ing terrible at the matchup to the point where it's embarassing.

And ZSS is bad but there are still a lot of matchups that she doesn't get heavily exploited in compared to her offensive game so they're still winnable.

 

[san.]

MK doesn't have "that one move" that really stands out on messing with Ike, and Ike has things that MK really needs to watch out for, but we still accept the -3 because we keep it real. Because of MK sugarcoating matchups, in comparison to other characters' MK MU, Ike would be -2 or better.

 

[Steam]

MK doesn't have "that one move" that really stands out on messing with Ike, and Ike has things that MK really needs to watch out for, but we still accept the -3 because we keep it real. Because of MK sugarcoating matchups, in comparison to other characters' MK MU, Ike would be -2 or better.

This is a really good post IMO

 

[solecalibur]

he is talking about weaknesses that can be worked around

 

[*CT*]

Everything looks pretty solid for Fox imo >.<

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Claifications:

Olimar got mixed feelings from the Lucario's, many people were moving it around from a 0/-1 when I averaged people we got a 0, I put more weight in opinions like Trela's who helped.

Because the Olimar boards agreed with us the discussion wasn't heavy on him.

For Zelda we said -3, then we got a discrepancy as such

Vs (+3 vs -1)

Zelda's thought we were only a -1 to them. So we had to rediscuss her.

Zelda's bad against Lucario, veeeeery bad. Unless you get mindgamed into getting hit by your own AS with Din's, it's pretty hard for Zelda unless the lucario's stupid. I've tried this MU a couple of times on the other end, it's not fun by any stretch of the imagination.

^should be Nayru's love but eh.

We got other comments basically saying her being a -1 wasn't possible.

I would consider a hard counter to be when they have almost no options or the matchup is borderline unwinnable...Zelda has options...they aren't great, but she has them.

So we dropped the -3 and went with a -2. The Zelda's accepted it.

 

[vato_break]

Dedede has absolutely no chance against Metaknight. If you wait for him to approach and tornado he has no option that beats him. Outside of learning to outspace him, that's all you have to do. Camp and Tornado. He can't punish your nado if he shields it (that's his only option against it from a run) and you can do it again if he runs at you again. Imo most MK players are just ****ing terrible at the matchup to the point where it's embarassing.

And ZSS is bad but there are still a lot of matchups that she doesn't get heavily exploited in compared to her offensive game so they're still winnable.

redhalberd with the truthness

 

[Fuujin]

Zelda's thought we were only a -1 to them.

Okay this is killing me...

Who were these Zeldas?

 

[Browny]

I'd think that the correct interpretation is that characters that move up from the bbr list to my list have stronger matchups against the top tiers than theyre given credit for, while the ones that move down have worse matchups



On the contrary, good sir. The first square root is done so that characters aren't made or broken by their matchup with MK (which sorta happens irl but thats beside the point :/). For instance, going back to my example, instead of losing almost 8 points for their matchup against MK, the Cllimbers will lose around 20. They end with a final score of 0.12, which would be 0.31 (at 5th, above Snake) given an even matchup against MK. Beyond MK at 1.09, the next highest character on the list is Falco at 0.41 due to his going even against everyone that matters. Marth is third, followed by Diddy, Snake, Pikachu (who also apparently goes even with MK), Wario, ICs, and Olimar. Once you hit characters that go -2 against him, nobody has a positive number...most lose more against him than they gain in all their positive matchups combined. It's quickly turning into a list of 'who does best against MK', where the characters that move up on the list are the ones that don't do as bad against MK as the characters beside them. See: Falco above Marth, Diddy jumping 4 spots, Fox going from 0.38 behind Peach to 0.01 behind, Lucario dropping like a brick...though that last one's more a case of getting wrecked by the rest of high tier...

On second thought, that isn't that bad lol
Thanks for pointing that out

However, rooting the popularity numbers but not rooting the matchup numbers is a no-go. Going back to my example, the ICs would still lose 7.78 points for their match against Kirby, but they'd gain almost 10 for +3'ing Kirby. Does that make sense? This does basically the opposite of rooting the popularity numbers, making sure that the mid tier guys with +4’s against characters that don't matter (I’m looking at you, DK vs. Lucas) don't skew stuff.

Rooting neither? Quite literally a list in order of how well each character does against MK, with only a little variance at the top (Marth is still 3rd behind Falco, and 4/5/6 are Snake/Pika/Diddy; ZSS jumps thanks to her -1 vs. MK; the ICs get a boost due to +2'ing and +3'ing random mid tiers, which probably shouldn't happen; assorted mid tiers get assorted boosts for random +4's against lows)...yet the bottom tiers are still mostly unchanged.

errr... what?

Heres what im saying

If say for example, the # of usege for characters at tournaments went...

MK 100
65
58
44
41
39
38
31
20
15
12
10
8
7
5
4
3

for characters who placed in the money. (Total 500)
MK has a relative domination of 20% while the worst of these characters is only 0.6%

Now if you do your version, MK now has a domination of only 12% while the worst character is now 2%

You have almost halved metaknights domination, and more than TRIPLED the weakest characters.

Im not talking about the characters MU with metaknight I dont care about that YET, im saying that square rooting the characters popularity has no purpose and simply squashes the data for no reason, you are no longer accurately representing characters popularity at tournaments.

NOW we consider the part with the MU vs metaknight. And... its the same thing. Whilst normally, MK does 4x better vs ganondorf than he does against snake, by square rooting it, now suddenly he only does twice as good against snake. Im not implying a +4 matchup is 4x easier than a +1 because attempting to quantify this is impossible, but that doesnt change the fact that square rooting these values serves no purpose other than to make large differences, smaller and close the gap.

Id really like to know what principle you are trying to apply here. I know a bit about stats and the only time you might try to compare the square roots of data is when you are dealing with enormous population sizes and you want to minimise the error by only sampling small amounts (ie, a census). This matchup chart has nothing to do with that >_<

 

[Orion*]

You forget the part where he's talking to another ZSS player.

You forgot the part where youre the only one that isnt completely garbage in game.

MK doesn't have "that one move" that really stands out on messing with Ike, and Ike has things that MK really needs to watch out for, but we still accept the -3 because we keep it real. Because of MK sugarcoating matchups, in comparison to other characters' MK MU, Ike would be -2 or better.

I don't think anyone is trying to make ike a -2... O_o

idk maybe I didnt understand the way you worded that.

why is it so clear? i can't think of any times a ddd of note has beaten an MK of note in tournament in the past...year maybe? certainly not since i've been around the scene. it simply doesn't happen. i agree it might not be THAT bad, but it's much worse than ddd's -2 matchups, so the logical course of action is to make it a -3.

Ummmmm...... Most of the -2 characters (on MK's list) haven't beat a MK of "note" outside of like a couple of people getting gimmicked by DK, Sonic, Ness.

comparing it to DDDs other -2 mu's doesnt work for me either because well.. I dont agree with them
Falco, Olimar, Pikachu, ZSS.

i have NO idea what the pikachu mu is but I think oli is only -1 (love the way you play that matchup btw ), and I think ZSS is pretty even (my personal bias- maybe but I still don't see it as a -2, I could live with a -1).

Falco is obviously pretty awful, but even you to some degree think that its winnable if you outskill the other player am I correct? It isn't acceptable for D3 to be in the tier with jiggs, link, falcon, ect because he simply doesn't lose that badly.

 

[Ussi]

San meant that there are characters vs MK who have -2 who do worse than/as bad as Ike against MK who has a -3

 

[Orion*]

San meant that there are characters vs MK who have -2 who do worse than/as bad as Ike against MK who has a -3

mario/lucas/yoshi off the top of my head shouldve been -3

 

[Steam]

doesn't Lucario beat MKs kinda oftenish? :V

I know he does better against MK than like all of the -2s... Cept maybe kirby Chu

DK really needs to be a -3 against MK as well... like... wut

 

[MK26]

errr... what?

Heres what im saying

If say for example, the # of usege for characters at tournaments went...

<numbers>

for characters who placed in the money. (Total 500)
MK has a relative domination of 20% while the worst of these characters is only 0.6%

Now if you do your version, MK now has a domination of only 12% while the worst character is now 2%

You have almost halved metaknights domination, and more than TRIPLED the weakest characters.

Im not talking about the characters MU with metaknight I dont care about that YET, im saying that square rooting the characters popularity has no purpose and simply squashes the data for no reason, you are no longer accurately representing characters popularity at tournaments.

yes, yes, youre correct there
i looked everything over and was writing as i checked stuff and played with the data, and though i was initially against your point by the end of that long paragraph i had realized that you were right

NOW we consider the part with the MU vs metaknight. And... its the same thing. Whilst normally, MK does 4x better vs ganondorf than he does against snake, by square rooting it, now suddenly he only does twice as good against snake. Im not implying a +4 matchup is 4x easier than a +1 because attempting to quantify this is impossible, but that doesnt change the fact that square rooting these values serves no purpose other than to make large differences, smaller and close the gap.

Id really like to know what principle you are trying to apply here. I know a bit about stats and the only time you might try to compare the square roots of data is when you are dealing with enormous population sizes and you want to minimise the error by only sampling small amounts (ie, a census). This matchup chart has nothing to do with that >_<

@myself:

i keep trying to go back to the data to prove my point and its only proving yours more and more

im not even gonna try to figure out what i decided to do
you're totally right

here

Matchup Chart Take 2

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Okay this is killing me...

Who were these Zeldas?

We weren't told who the other panelists were most of the time.

Only time we were is when Pit vs Lucario had both boards saying they had a +1 against each other.

Dark musician is in the BBR, I don't know about the others who helped.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

MK doesn't have "that one move" that really stands out on messing with Ike, and Ike has things that MK really needs to watch out for, but we still accept the -3 because we keep it real. Because of MK sugarcoating matchups, in comparison to other characters' MK MU, Ike would be -2 or better.

*co-signs this statement* Ike at least actually has a few things in his favor. His aerials are transcendent priority like MK's, but with more range. He doesn't need to land nearly as many hits as other characters due to his raw strength. His jab game is still usable against MK. We have a heck of a lot of moves that knock MK out of tornado. We have both Bthrow -> Dash Attack or GR -> Dash Attack if we ever get a grab on MK. Super Armour on our recovery move is always a plus for when MK tries to gimp us (though it rarely helps >_>)

Either fix MK's MUs, or alter Ike's accordingly. BTW, if you make MK -2, you've gotta change his -2s to -1s, and then his -1s to 0s. MK is a step ahead of everyone else in terms of difficulty for Ike. So obviously, if MK is -2 because it doesn't make sense for him to be -3 compared to others, then Falco and D3 need to be -1. However, these characters are more difficult than say Snake or Diddy, so you need to move those guys to 0.

Or, ya know, go back to my previous statement of dumping the current MK panel and get guys who will actually put up real numbers instead of sugarcoated ones. <_<

 

[Alphicans]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -2 isn't a specific rating, it covers a range of difficulties!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

in most people's minds they are associating the new numbers with old ratios

to them -2 is 55:45-60:40 and -3 is 60:40-70:30

or that's wat im getting from their posts.

if anything people should just forget about the old ratios completely. it makes reading the chart so much easier to understand

 

[Nidtendofreak]

The old ratios were much better than the new system.

"So, X and Y are equally difficult for us?"

"Nah, Y is more difficult, even though they have the exact same rating."

Yes sir, that isn't confusing at all. Make the numbers mean something specific, and not "a range".

 

[Alphicans]

Yeah and the difference between 60-40 and 65-35 is really clear...... Nope. Maybe we'll incorporate .5 ratings in other updates, but as the first release, this ambiguity seems appropriate.

Ratio ratings were always stupid imo.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

.5?

Please tell me you won't.

 

[Alphicans]

It would make things really confusing, and make the chart really hard to make, but it would also makes some match-ups easier to rate. Keep in mind this is just me speaking, I am not at all speaking on behalf of the BBR. lol.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

yeah, why not just add +-5 and make the other numbers description a little more specific as to the level of difficulty instead of putting 2 very different difficulties in one number?

 

[Alphicans]

Well that goes without saying. Adding more numbers or going with a .5 systems is the same thing...

 

[Ussi]

Isn't difficulty subjective to the player?

Some people find some MUs easier while others find it harder

 

[Pierce7d]

Perhaps we will consider expanding the range, by making it a scale of 1-4, instead of 1-3

 

[Nidtendofreak]

It's already a 1-4 scale. You mean a 1-5 scale. Either way, 0 should mean truly neutral at a minimum, not "close to truly neutral". And then there are the other issues others and I have brought up. >_>

Hopefully v2.0 is much better.

 

[da K.I.D.]

niddo, you need to chill out. seriously. nobody said the thing was gonna be perfect and not only that, who the hell are YOU to act all high and mighty like your the one that must be appeased by the chart?

 

[Tagxy]

I really dont see how its a huge stretch for Ike to be -3 considering the good quality characters with quality wins already at -2. What notable wins do Ikes have against notable MKs that make this such a large error?