Official BBR Matchup Chart v1.0

[DMG]

50:50 - Even

55:45 - Evenish

6:4 - Soft Counter

7:3 - Counter

8:2 - Hard counter


GG you have a new scale

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

We each make our own tier lists and they are averaged out. However, all of the people's opinions in the BBR are swayed by results, theorycraft, technical potential, and personal success/lack of success.

 

[Kewkky]

50:50 - Even

55:45 - Evenish

6:4 - Soft Counter

7:3 - Counter

8:2 - Hard counter


GG you have a new scale

But DMG, what do those numbers mean? Why's there 55:45? What happened to 9:1? This is too different, I refuse changing the way we do things because it's different!

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

that doesn't seem like a very efficient method for making a tier list. i mean the part where you all make one based off of tourney results and average them sounds good, but tbh it leaves a lot of room for lesser played characters to get screwed over on it because chances are those character's don't have representation just tourney results. like do wolf, rob, peach, pit, and DK even have solid representation in the bbr? as far as i've been keeping track these characters have been starting to perform better overall in recent tournies (will, esca, and illmatic were all top 20 at whobo3, also i hear from my buds in norcal that Choice has been making more appearences and doing rather well with wolf, esca placed well at the last hobo as did illmatic, i thought i heard something about a ROB winning a tourney over on east coast but im not sure on that) so does that even sway the bbr members at all or is it biased towards just the popular characters?

 

[Alphicans]

ROB has good rep, and peach definitely has good rep. Wolf has choice and now seagull. Pit has a few people too. Character rep is definitely getting better in the BBR, but the lower tiered characters are still getting shafted.

 

[Kewkky]

Believe me Maharba, we have good representation in the BBR. Lower-tiered characters, not so much, but we try our best to get people who main those to join. We can't help it if none of the character mainers of those underrepresented characters want to join the BBR.

 

[san.]

A lot of Ike's -1s should be 0s due to the expansion of the 0 value in comparison to 50:50.

 

[Tesh]

lol @ this conversation. They changed slight advantage/disadvantage to 0 for the sole purpose of making some of mks matchups look even. Now all they have to do is argue he only has a SLIGHT edge on everyone and he is not broken.

Clever

 

[Kewkky]

lol @ this conversation. They changed slight advantage/disadvantage to 0 for the sole purpose of making some of mks matchups look even. Now all they have to do is argue he only has a SLIGHT edge on everyone and he is not broken.

Clever

Whatever you say, Tesh, whatever you say. I think the smart people know the real reason as to why we made a different rating system.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

If people have a problem with a rating being 1 off, you guys also have to remember this. We were told NOT to relate "Slight advantage" to a ratio, but keep it as a slight advantage. There are different ideas of what "Slight advantages" are, and what ratios they would correspond to in people's heads. So one person might think +1 is from 55:45-60:40, while others may only think it is up to 55:45. This could cause a discrepancy, whether a lack of a difference between two boards or causing a difference.

 

[san.]

When you decrease the number of increments to reach the maximum range of values, being off by one holds much greater weight.

And I really can't tell the difference between ambiguity with ratios and ambiguity with points.

 

[Tesh]

Saying its 0 but not quite even is alot easier than saying its 50:50 but not even. Other system was fine. Only reason I could see to change it is to have an unweighted matchup based tier list, which would be worthless anyway.

 

[Kewkky]

Okay Tesh, I have a serious question for you. Is your goal to change something we're doing wrong, or to make us look like we wasted our time and have people keep losing respect for us? As it stands, it's the latter what I see is going on.

Our goal was to do something useful for the community, and we did it in a way we all agreed to. We decided that the old ratio was too ambiguous, so we made a new system and the majority of us agreed to follow through with it. The old system was flawed in other ways too, or did you not notice? Numbers only went from 30:70 > 70:30 regularly, whatever happened to the other numbers? Heck, instead of people using those other numbers left out, they decided it was a good idea to use two number digits, like 55:45, 65:35, etc! And even then people wouldn't get the definitions right; some people would say it's the number of times the character would theoretically win throughout 10 matches, others would say it's like a scale that tilts depending on who's got the bigger advantage, and of course we had people saying that "it's not 55:45, it's 60:40!", pretty much pointing out that the ratio could be either one of those, which could be fixed by consolidating both those ratios into one agreeable number.

If you don't like the way how we did things, it's okay, we're all different and entitled to our own opinions. We made this chart knowing there would be people who disagreed with it, because that's just how things are, we can't please everyone, it's impossible. But saying the chart is worthless because you don't agree with it is very much uncalled for. You don't even do anything for the community, something some of us dedicate their time in SWF to do. I don't think you have the right to spit on our projects like that.


... As for saying the old scale was easier, I disagree. I think this ratio is easier to read and agree with.

 

[Tesh]

Its easier to agree with because you have less numbers to work with, and its thus easier to say "well you think its even, and i think its a small disadvantage but thats still 0 so we both agree".

My point is that you all agree more now because you just made the measurements more vague.

The problem here is that you rank MK vs Diddy Kong the same as MK vs MK. Old system you would not.

 

[Kewkky]

Its easier to agree with because you have less numbers to work with, and its thus easier to say "well you think its even, and i think its a small disadvantage but thats still 0 so we both agree".

My point is that you all agree more now because you just made the measurements more vague.

And that is a bad thing? Sometimes widening the scale is detrimental too, and a sign of this is people arguing over and over about how an MU is 55:45 vs 60:40... I personally think the old scale was worse and this one better to work with.

Then again, none of the scales used here are wrong. It's just their interpretations that are mostly disagreed with. I disagree with the previous scale, and I think this new one is better because we can solidly define what the numbers mean, which leads us to actually getting things done rather than have all the character boards "revisit MUs" constantly and argue between each other if MK vs Diddy is 55:45, 50:50 or 45:55.

The problem here is that you rank MK vs Diddy Kong the same as MK vs MK. Old system you would not.

That's an opinion, man. I personally think they go evenish, and some people even said in the past that Diddy has an edge over MK if they play on FD. I dunno if I'm right or wrong, nor if you are right or wrong, there's no tool in the game that tells us, so all we can do is conclude according to what we learn, then see if the majority of those discussing the MUs agree with us.

 

[Alphicans]

Tesh, the old system is better if only one party is making the list. However, there are two parties for every match-up, meaning there will likely be a discrepency. If we say +1/-1 can mean multiple ratios it makes agreeing possible.

 

[WindMajor]

More like "easier", but yeah.

I prefer this system for the reasons stated in the OP.

And remember Tesh, all of this is based on opinions. You're arguing that the MK vs ___ MU shouldn't be 50:50, but what makes you right, and everyone else wrong? All that is is your opinion, that is what this chart, and every MU ratio ever is based on: opinions.

 

[Alphicans]

I was gonna say easier, but realized possible is a better word. +2 match-ups have a pretty wide range of difficulty, and in the old system if you're arguing over a discrepancy of 10 ish points, it just will never happen.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

... As for saying the old scale was easier, I disagree. I think this ratio is easier to read and agree with.

Since we're on the topic of opinions: I find myself disagreeing more with the current system, not less. The numbers are too vague and are a convent way to appease people who are more off in their opinions of MUs. "Well, this number can be either neutral or slight advantage, so I'll just say this number at let ourselves believe which one it is". Yet, this allows for MUs to appear to be equally difficult, when one is clearly more difficult than the other.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

i like this system personally, i just think it needs to have one more number added to it (+-5) and make 1-4 descriptions a little more specific. like

1: slight advantage (mayb something as small as CP stages but a noticable advantage)
2-5 the other definitions would be fine

of course this imo

 

[san.]

-3:
-2:
-1:
0:
1:
2:

When looking back at this, it's difficult to find a number I can agree on.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

-3:
-2:
-1:
0:
1:
2:

When looking back at this, it's difficult to find a number I can agree on.

Well, MK I think we can agree with. It's winnable, but barely. Going through that list though...with how random this number system is do to being so small, you can argue a lot of them need to be changed, because things like Bowser and Kirby are not the same difficulty. Not even close really.

And hey, if Pikachu/Falco/Diddy is even with MK, Ike has a whole lot more neutral MUs. And a lot of his current 0s need to be +1s...a few +1s need to be +2s....

 

[Kewkky]

Nidtendo: differences in MU numbers isn't always because the other is misinformed, you know. The person could have different experiences, a different playstyle/plays against a different playstyle, he could play on different stages, or his perception of what a 60:40 means could be what the other person thinks a 55:45 means. He wouldn't be wrong, he would just have a different perspective is all. Smash has too many factors that interfere with our ability to properly make MU charts, contrary to other fighting games which are simpler to understand.

San: Kirby definitely deserves to be a 0 there, yessiree. As for the other ones... I dunno how Ikes play their other MUs so I'm okay staying quiet.

 

[Alphicans]

San: Kirby definitely deserves to be a 0 there, yessiree. As for the other ones... I dunno how Ikes play their other MUs so I'm okay staying quiet.

Classic example of what I was saying earlier.

 

[Poltergust]

I think this number system is perfectly fine. If a match-up is even, it's a 0. If it goes even slightly to a certain character, it becomes another number. 0 match-ups are not supposed to represent "even or very slight advantage" match-ups, they are only supposed to represent "even" match-ups. Slight advantages go to the +1/-1 range. I'm sure that the people who discussed the Diddy vs. MK match-up and such had this idea in mind. If they believed that their character was at a disadvantage, even by a little, they would have not gone for the 0.

@San: I disagree with Ike having a +1 over Yoshi, actually. I believe it to be an even match-up myself. I ultimately couldn't achieve that number, though. =/

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You know, if it's not exactly even you should go with a -1 or +1, like Diddy and Wario vs Lucario is close but it's not exactly even Diddy and Wario win by a little bit.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Same goes with Ganon vs. Falcon, Ganon vs. Bowser. Both characters have very slight things over Ganon, Ganon goes even against them on the neutral and has an advantage against them on his CP. However, on their CP, he is absolutely destroyed. There are simply too many stages that **** with Ganon for him to not get gayed on their CP.

Yet it's -1. Either make Diddy/Pika/Falco vs. Metaknight -1 for them, or make Falcon/Bowser/(maybe Link, I have no MU exp so I'll stay out of it) 0 for Ganon.

Also, while I'm at it, a bunch of Ganon MUs seem off. Wario is definitely easier than Mario, Diddy and Pokémon Trainer are also easier than a lot of characters in the -3 area.

Also Ice Climbers should be in their own area. The MU is far harder than even Metaknight. Whereas you still have options, albeit very few and easily shut down ones against Falco, Metaknight, even Sheik, you have NONE against an Ice Climbers who knows how to desynch. At all. It should be on a tier of its own, -5.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Link should have an advantage on Ganon.

 

[Flayl]

Supreme Dirt, please explain on how having a CG to a guaranteed Klaw or a ground-release DTilt is a "very slight thing" for Bowser against Ganon - this is also one of the many reasons Bowser has the advantage on neutrals. Not to mention that if Bowser has the lead he can do retreating SH FAirs and Ganon cannot punish them.

Let me nip this in the bud, how many Bowsers have you played that have CG'd you, ever?

edit: Might as well join in the Ike MU discussions. IMO ike should be +1 against Bowser. It's one of the two matchups Bowser has that could be considered overrated on the chart (Sheilda being the other one).

 

[Kewkky]

Classic example of what I was saying earlier.

I went back two pages to see what you were saying and found nothing. Could you explain?

 

[Alphicans]

Lol maybe that was the tier list thread. I basically said that both characters of a match-up will likely have a different view on the match-up.

 

[Kewkky]

Lol maybe that was the tier list thread. I basically said that both characters of a match-up will likely have a different view on the match-up.

Ah! Then yeah, I totally agree with you.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Fair enough Flayl.

Nonetheless, my point still stands when it comes to Falcon.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Nidtendo: differences in MU numbers isn't always because the other is misinformed, you know. The person could have different experiences, a different playstyle/plays against a different playstyle, he could play on different stages, or his perception of what a 60:40 means could be what the other person thinks a 55:45 means. He wouldn't be wrong, he would just have a different perspective is all. Smash has too many factors that interfere with our ability to properly make MU charts, contrary to other fighting games which are simpler to understand.

That will always happen, no matter what scale you use. Doesn't mean you shy away from a more precise, more accurate scale and telling panels that they need to stop overrating/underrating their MUs. I'm not talking one or two arguments over MUs. I'm talking when more or less their entire chart looks suspect. *looks at MK's chart*

I think this number system is perfectly fine. If a match-up is even, it's a 0. If it goes even slightly to a certain character, it becomes another number. 0 match-ups are not supposed to represent "even or very slight advantage" match-ups, they are only supposed to represent "even" match-ups. Slight advantages go to the +1/-1 range. I'm sure that the people who discussed the Diddy vs. MK match-up and such had this idea in mind. If they believed that their character was at a disadvantage, even by a little, they would have not gone for the 0.

@San: I disagree with Ike having a +1 over Yoshi, actually. I believe it to be an even match-up myself. I ultimately couldn't achieve that number, though. =/

Problem is they are putting down 0s for "slightly to a certain character" when it's clearly a 1. If we use that range of "slight but still 0" that was used with MK's MUs on Ike, I can guaranteed you probably about half of those -1s are suddenly 0s.

Wanna know how to fix it? Bring back the old scale, use 55:45 where appropriate. Ta-da, it's fixed!

And Ike:Yoshi is 55:45, which can be either 0 or +1, depending on who you talk to/how they want the MU chart to look like, so you should be fine with it if you like this scale.

edit: Might as well join in the Ike MU discussions. IMO ike should be +1 against Bowser. It's one of the two matchups Bowser has that could be considered overrated on the chart (Sheilda being the other one).

It's arguably even better for Ike now: if there is a wall, between Bthrow and Fthrow we can CG Bowser against it to 170% apparently. Even though there aren't many stages with walls...

But yes, it should be +1. Hopefully San gets the Ike MUs fixed for the next update.

...

Ugh, I seriously hate this scale so much. Too arbitrary which in turn causes lots of problems. There is a reason I only use those numbers in this topic. >_>

 

[Kewkky]

All scales are arbitrary, man. Unless Sakurai himself had made a chart within the game, all we can do is arbitrary.

I see you haven't forgotten that this is just v1.0, from what you said in the end of your post. That's good, because the chart won't stay the way it is right now forever, it's gonna update and keep updating until the vast majority are comfortable with it (like the tier list). The more character diversity we have in the BBR, the better it'll look, and if you see who we have in the BBR now and who we had when we made this MU chart, I think you can see more diversity and activity than before (san representing Ike sounds like it's making you happy, and I know Yink for Ness makes the Ness community happy. Just two examples).

Just hang in there, we trust in our scale. If in the end it doesn't work, then obviously it'll change, it's not permanent. But right now I personally think it's better than the one before, so I don't know what else to say besides "give the chart time to mature".

 

[Poltergust]

Problem is they are putting down 0s for "slightly to a certain character" when it's clearly a 1. If we use that range of "slight but still 0" that was used with MK's MUs on Ike, I can guaranteed you probably about half of those -1s are suddenly 0s.

Wanna know how to fix it? Bring back the old scale, use 55:45 where appropriate. Ta-da, it's fixed!

And Ike:Yoshi is 55:45, which can be either 0 or +1, depending on who you talk to/how they want the MU chart to look like, so you should be fine with it if you like this scale.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I put a match-up down as 0 then I find it to be completely even. I'm sure that everyone else followed this same criteria, too. If a match-up is in someone's favor, it's simple to just put down a +1/-1 for it.

I also do not agree with Ike having a slight advantage on Yoshi. I was not happy with having to concede a -1 for it. I don't find either character to have the advantage at all.

 

[Yikarur]

there aren't completly even match ups beside ditos in any game.

 

[Kewkky]

there aren't completly even match ups beside ditos in any game.

I was thinking of saying something along those lines (more like "There's no completely even MUs in the game besides dittos whether you want to believe it or not, even the 0 MUs aren't COMPLETELY even. Should all MUs rated 0 change then?"). Some characters have an edge over the others, even if so slight it's unnoticeable during gameplay. It might be an advantage of like 49.99:50.01, but I definitely don't think you can have a 50.00:50.00 MU with a different character in this game.

 

[Yikarur]

Port Priority doesn't count !!

 

[san.]

Thing about wall CGs, we already wall CG a ton of characters. It's just that we can do it on more walls in more ways. *shrug*