Official BBR Tier List v5

[John12346]

Idk his dash always seemed fast relative to his size to me, and his buffered turn around jump Bair makes the hitbox reach you way quicker than it should.

High mobility might've been the wrong choice of words.

 

[The Real Inferno]

This thread is cute.

Hey guys! Just thought I would pop into this thread and talk just a little bit about the upcoming matchup chart (and peek at some other charts for my own personal amusement). I just want to say that the BBR has been busting our collective butts on this for a while and I personally can't wait to put this out to the public. I am, of course bound by my BBR obligations and cannot release any specific information about the matchup chart. I believe this is the most accurate chart that could be currently constructed. We have sought out input from top players of characters from various scenes and put every member of the BBR to work in analyzing every matchup for their character.

More about the process will be included with our release, but more than just mash numbers against each other, we have brought consensus between representatives of characters to find a common ground between them. Through this, we hope to present the best chart we possibly can that is both faithful to the competitive scene and the views of the players. We are currently crunching the final numbers out (through brute force with a very large hammer and a very angry gerbil. This is the most scientific method.) We hope to release soon of course as soon as this process is finished and everything is made presentable. As the metagame continues to shift and grow, matchups will need to be shifted and the chart updated, but what we have created is a solid framework from which we can now work in future installments of this project.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough. I just wanted to hype up this project a little more. It's been a bit of a pet project for me in the BBR since it started and I'm just excited that we're nearing the end, I hope you guys are too now.

 

[Poltergust]

He's the slowest character in the air and like 4th slowest on the ground.

He's worse than Luigi when it comes to mobility.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

wut

Watch him roll or fastfall.

 

[Xebenkeck]

Mobility isn't much of a problem when he has hitboxes, far beyond his hurtbox, like ftilt, and bair, not to mention how much range his grab and dash grab has. Luigi only wishes he had a move that can hit at a safe distance. That is y its a problem for him, and not so much DDD. Plus DDD falls fast as hell!!!

EDIT; dam you reflex

 

[Exceladon City]

Vinnie, who is that girl in your picture and what is up with her nose?

On topic, idk.

That's Tra$ha.

 

[Espy Rose]

@Vinnie: The project is nearing it's final stages, so expect it out soon.
Don't sit back and wait for it either though, because then it'll feel like an eternity before it's released.

 

[deepseadiva]

I'm assuming Ankoku's making it? Otherwise it better be graphically pleasing.

Official BBR Crappy JPEG Rajam Chart Thing.

 

[Flayl]

How many matchups are going to come down to theorycraft due to lack of occurences in tournaments?

Or was that never a factor? Did the players just say the ratios and come to "a happy median"?

 

[DMG]

How many matchups are going to come down to theorycraft due to lack of occurences in tournaments?

Or was that never a factor? Did the players just say the ratios and come to "a happy median"?

A few might be like that. Even for "better" characters, there are matchups that just don't take place quite frequently. Pikachu vs Wario for example has rarely been seen period, even at a lower level. IC's vs Wario is another one where you don't see Bassem/Me/Malcolm/etc fighting Lain/Hylian/etc over and over. Or ZSS vs Olimar.


With that said though, I'm fairly confident a reasonable ratio was found for matchups like that. Pika vs Wario doesn't happen often, but it would be reasonable to say that it looks a teeny bit in Wario's favor. It's similar for other matchups people just haven't seen a lot: besides things that look like hard counters, one character will just barely have an edge over the other.

 

[Spelt]

That's Tra$ha.

Top tier on the worst puns ever tier list

 

[da K.I.D.]

first of all, matchup ratios are a thing of the past.

2nd, a lot of the matchups the are common in tourneys are still going to come down to theory craft at times.

3rd. for matchups that arent luigi, player(s) from both sides of the matchup were involved. Although I do know of some characters and people who had stronger opinions than the people they spoke to. Which resulted in some peoples opinions and believes on matchups being a bit overpowered and pushed to the side.

 

[deepseadiva]

Reading around lately, what is with all this +3 and -1 stuff.

 

[Spelt]

+3 means 65:35 and -1 is 45:55

 

[John12346]

Example:

Lucario MU
vs. Ganon: +3

Means 65:35 in Lucario's favor.

Edit: Ninja'd by Spelt

 

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

Ok so if - 1 = 45:55 and + 3 = 65:35 than I'm assuming +2 = 60:40?

...
Why not just use the old ratio system if the 'new numbers' are pretty much telling you the same thing

 

[da K.I.D.]

are you sure?

in that case what is 2? and what is 4? and what if theres a matchup that could feasibly be 1.5? what does that mean. Im pretty sure the numbers arent the same for everybody. and if the numbers translated that easy to begin with why didnt they just use the ratios?

EDIT my turn to get ninjad

 

[Espy Rose]

No, Spelt.

You cannot translate the new ratios into the old ratios. There's no concrete way of doing this because the translations between the systems are difficult to agree upon. What one person says for one translation is incorrect to another, and it just spawns confusion and errors in interpretation of the chart.

In order to properly analyze the data that will be presented in the New Matchup chart, you will need to ignore the old ratios completely.

Just my opinion, but I think it was done to help do away with predispositions regarding number ratios between certain match ups. Presenting a new method to "grade" the match up on while disallowing one access to old number ratios could potentially help players come up with a more accurate number of the match up after an analysis has been done.

At least, that's what I'd like to think.

 

[Ishiey]

0 = even, 1 = soft counter, 2 = counter, 3 = hard counter, 4 = gg. Right? Or something similar to that.

 

[Vinnie]

4 is an option? I would have made jigglypuff a 4...

 

[Coney]

not everyone conceptualizes the MUs in that way

according to the actual project:

+1 was defined as small advantage (55:45 according to previous notions, though no ratio was given)
+2 was defined as soft counter (6:4 " " ")
+3 was defined as hard counter (7:3 " " ")
+4 was defined as unloseable. (9:1 " " ")

i agree with what's laid out above above. however, there have been a few discrepancies, like i said before. the MKs thought they only soft countered ddd, simply because they destroyed other characters harder, while all the ddds (well, all two of us) simply wouldn't lower from our -3, hard counter. we never came to a resolution.

though i think the project was a great idea and executed very well, these kind of issues are ALWAYS going to be there. just try to take it with a grain of salt.

oh yeah, and i really don't mean to be rude but, why are so many people so confident in ALL of their characters matchups? a few regulars in this thread live in isolated regions with little relative talent, how can you be so cocksure?

 

[deepseadiva]

The old system was indeed clunky. I wondered if anyone was ever going to go ahead and do a simplification.

 

[Espy Rose]

+4 being un-winnable, while simultaneously being a "9:1" is a contradiction, coney. 9:1 implies that 10% of the time, the disadvantaged character will win.

If you want, you can call it a "Very Hard Counter". Or, "reasonably un-winnable".
But "unwinnable"? Not a chance.

 

[Coney]

+4 being un-winnable, while simultaneously being a "9:1" is a contradiction, coney. 9:1 implies that 10% of the time, the disadvantaged character will win.

If you want, you can call it a "Very Hard Counter". Or, "reasonably un-winnable".
But "unwinnable"? Not a chance.

you know what i mean. theoretically a DK COULD beat ddd with infinites allowed, but...the odds are very, very small. ddd/ganon SHOULD be +4 for us, considering at the top level a ganon will never, ever beat a ddd, but the possibility IS there

what defines an IMPOSSIBLE matchup? we all know it's not a literal thing and we're speaking relatively, we're past all that. 9:1 is more like 98:2, 9:1 is just simpler

 

[Death Arcana]

For the post count +1 imo.

cause lookin at my post count, i really want +1's right?

What? I can't believe that TL vs DK is even. Also, you have Zelda as 55-35.

fixd for ya

@TL Mus- Lucario doesn't have a significant advantage on tink IMO. though I do think lucario has a slight advantage. TL is still pretty good inside against lucario. all lucario really has going for him other than the obvious is TL not killing, which... is rather huge...

40-60 is advantage not significant advantage
and not being able to kill is basically everything

no ds4, tink is terrible for yoshi, just watch our matches, if I can't get the approach and take a single boomerang to the face, I take 60 damage every time

fixd for you

it's so even that it is a counter.

lol my bad

Pokemon Trainer is a character I wish got a bigger placing mostly with Charizard but the whole switching in and out really knocks him off the bigger spots.

im pretty sure charizard is the one holding pokemon trainer back
tis all about squirtle

 

[Espy Rose]

Did you catch my , Coney?
I hope so.

Even so, it's still technically incorrect to call it "impossible", "unwinnable", or any of those terms that describe that it is not within any probably/possible means to win.

 

[Teh Future]

dont you know espy that mk d3 is at least 91-7 mks favor.

 

[Coney]

well yeah i mean this system is dumb

but what else can you do

here's to hoping the new system will help :X

 

[da K.I.D.]

oh yeah, and i really don't mean to be rude but, why are so many people so confident in ALL of their characters matchups? a few regulars in this thread live in isolated regions with little relative talent, how can you be so cocksure?

Its funny because afaik the biggest culprit of this, lives in your region.

but as for me, Im only super confident in about half of my characters matchups. the other half, I have opinions on but i am not as sure.

 

[Coney]

Its funny because afaik the biggest culprit of this, lives in your region.

trust me, i know. he says my character soundly destroys snake and goes even with olimar. i know, man.

the old system kinda sucked but at least it provided some kind of framework with understanding how different characters interact. it's difficult to kinda nail these ideas down but it's still really important, and until another form comes about, we gotta deal with it.

 

[DMG]

No, Spelt.

You cannot translate the new ratios into the old ratios. There's no concrete way of doing this because the translations between the systems are difficult to agree upon. What one person says for one translation is incorrect to another, and it just spawns confusion and errors in interpretation of the chart.

In order to properly analyze the data that will be presented in the New Matchup chart, you will need to ignore the old ratios completely.

Just my opinion, but I think it was done to help do away with predispositions regarding number ratios between certain match ups. Presenting a new method to "grade" the match up on while disallowing one access to old number ratios could potentially help players come up with a more accurate number of the match up after an analysis has been done.

At least, that's what I'd like to think.

Personally I like the 100 point scale the best. I think you can accurately rate every matchup in Brawl with this scale: the problem is more along what Coney said. People rate down from hard counters, instead of properly scaling up. That's the issue with the current system.

AKA MK vs Dedede is a hard counter, but gets labeled as 6:4 because it's easier than other hard counters. Instead of labeling Dedede as 7:3, and the other harder matchups as 75:25 or worse.

(It's not just the MK boards that are guilty of this. Probably every board besides an incredibly unbiased one is guilty of downplaying or labeling matchups incorrectly.)

0 = even, 1 = soft counter, 2 = counter, 3 = hard counter, 4 = gg. Right? Or something similar to that.

If you note to people that 0 is specifically for 50-50 matchups only, then yeah that can work.

not everyone conceptualizes the MUs in that way

according to the actual project:

+1 was defined as small advantage (55:45 according to previous notions, though no ratio was given)
+2 was defined as soft counter (6:4 " " ")
+3 was defined as hard counter (7:3 " " ")
+4 was defined as unloseable. (9:1 " " ")

i agree with what's laid out above above. however, there have been a few discrepancies, like i said before. the MKs thought they only soft countered ddd, simply because they destroyed other characters harder, while all the ddds (well, all two of us) simply wouldn't lower from our -3, hard counter. we never came to a resolution.

though i think the project was a great idea and executed very well, these kind of issues are ALWAYS going to be there. just try to take it with a grain of salt.

oh yeah, and i really don't mean to be rude but, why are so many people so confident in ALL of their characters matchups? a few regulars in this thread live in isolated regions with little relative talent, how can you be so cocksure?

Yeah.

 

[_Kadaj_]

Thy Logic is flawed for there beath no ganon of thee highest caliber

 

[Spelt]

No, Spelt.

You cannot translate the new ratios into the old ratios. There's no concrete way of doing this because the translations between the systems are difficult to agree upon. What one person says for one translation is incorrect to another, and it just spawns confusion and errors in interpretation of the chart.

In order to properly analyze the data that will be presented in the New Matchup chart, you will need to ignore the old ratios completely.

Just my opinion, but I think it was done to help do away with predispositions regarding number ratios between certain match ups. Presenting a new method to "grade" the match up on while disallowing one access to old number ratios could potentially help players come up with a more accurate number of the match up after an analysis has been done.

At least, that's what I'd like to think.

uhh, okay. 6_9 I kind of don't really get what you're trying to say, but i'm fine with a new matchup system.

I figured the numbers were just a way to make the process more efficient. like maybe you take all numbers of one matchup, and find the average.

 

[Flayl]

+2 isn't a soft counter. You guys screwed up the system already lol

 

[DMG]

+2 isn't a soft counter. You guys screwed up the system already lol

If +2 indicates a soft counter/6:4 matchup, then how so?

 

[Flayl]

since when is +2 a 60:40

hahaha

 

[DMG]

since when is +2 a 60:40

hahaha

We're talking about the new scale, not the old scale or a scale from a different game.

On the upcoming scale, +2 relates to roughly 6:4 difficulty matchups. You can disagree about whether +2 should represent that or not, but as it stands +2 on this scale will represent that.

 

[Flayl]

Do you guys even realize how close 60:40 is? I don't think you do. So basically we have the same problem as before, just different representation.

 

[Spelt]

winning 6/10 times is a pretty big deal.
that's a relatively significant gap in character performance imo.

 

[DMG]

Do you guys even realize how close 60:40 is? I don't think you do. So basically we have the same problem as before, just different representation.

Don't shoot the messenger bro. I've already vocalized my opinion on the matter both here and back there, I'm just telling you what the scaling will be.