Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[Doser]

Numbers make it easier to see how good/bad a mu is in relation to others instead of "fox is kinda harder for falcon than shiek"

But that only makes sense if they are actually meaning something very specific.

If they are just giving rough ideas, it doesn't make any sense to give such precise numbers to an imprecise result.

 

[john!]

matchup numbers absolutely cannot correspond to words in any logical way, if you want to have a consistent numbering system across the entire playerbase.

people say that a 100-0 matchup is "impossible", but every matchup is winnable by the worse character if they are significantly better than the opposing player. even a 150-(-50) matchup is winnable if it's me vs. my grandma. most people label a 100-0 matchup as "impossible", but the truth is that matchups go much further than that.

a 100-0 matchup should be (by definition) the most difficult matchup in the game. all matchups more even than 75-25 should be closer to even than they are to the worst matchup in the game.

i dislike the "percentage of matches won by each player" approach, because it fails to account for individual player consistency. with two players of equal skill that are very consistent, one player will win a 65-35 matchup the vast majority of the time. if these players were extremely inconsistent, they would win a roughly equal amount of matches.

 

[Ripple]

who tries to make MU rations based on inconsistent players?

 

[Deleted member]

I guess I am the only one that still views the percentages as the percentage of matches each character is likely to win with two top players of equal skill

this is fine as long as over half of your list is 100-0 MUs

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Hey bones. I recall you saying you preferred the approach of viewing match-up numbers based upon equal skill implies match-up number can be used to see percentage of win ratio towards a character.

But, how would you explain that at different skill levels. I feel this view sort of falls apart at different levels since with lack of skill comes with more failed attempts at punishes.

The only reason I see falco/marth being even is because Marth can destroy falco off a single solid combo set-up while I see falco dominates the neutral game. At a lower level, Marth seems pretty formidable with very simple edgeguard set-ups or grab game trickies which are missed at a lower skill level. At the upper end, these "easy" sort of punishes dissolve for the most part and you have to stick stick with the bread and butter punishes such as cg -> utilt/uair.

All this miscommunication is why I prefer terms like "negligible advantage/even, small advantage, solid advantage, and large advantage."

I think a lot of top tier matchups could just be called even without anyone really substantially disagreeing...

I always thought that match-ups could lumped together into even or advantage at the high tier end. Peach, Shiek, Marth, Puff, Falco, Fox for example.

 

[Xyzz]

I like KKs way of putting it.

It does kinda shift the blame to another arbitrary numbering (when's a player 20% better than another?), but at least one that is a bit less foggy.

 

[john!]

who tries to make MU rations based on inconsistent players?

who tries to make them based on consistent players? if everybody was perfectly consistent then there would be no upsets and every matchup would be 100-0 (assuming players stay at a constant skill level)

 

[KirbyKaze]

who tries to make them based on consistent players? if everybody was perfectly consistent then there would be no upsets and every matchup would be 100-0 (assuming players stay at a constant skill level)

I don't really agree with this.

Even playing technically consistent (within human potential) there's still potential for upsets to happen simply because most of the important characters are hilariously fragile at this point in the game's development and there are enough situations where the match can shift in either direction simply because both characters have tons of options and you can't react to all of them, nor can you prepare for all of them. And the two characters who put lids on options the best (Falco & to a slightly lesser degree Fox) are conveniently about as durable as tissue paper >_>

That said, a lot of MUs with perfectly consistent players do become 10-0. I just don't think many of the good characters' MUs with one another fall victim to this 'cuz they - for the most part - have answers to the opponent's stuff that aren't flimsy or bought at low tier mart.

 

[john!]

stop being so realistic kk! i was playing theory bros. and assuming that people were robots. in my world, two players have the exact same inputs frame by frame every time they play each other. beep boop.

in real life, humans can't be anywhere near this consistent, and we have to account for that. that was my point when i addressed ripple

 

[MaskedMarth]

Why have the two numbers if it's not a ratio.

Numbers and scales are good though. You could collapse KK's system into one number, so Sheik could be +10 against Marth or whatever. We don't have any real way of saying what "playing 10% better" means either, but the ratios seem more misleading to me.

Of course people will just keep using 55/45. Whatever. We can read between the lines.

 

[Kink-Link5]

this is fine as long as over half of your list is 100-0 MUs

This is really a good way to look at how Bones is presenting the idea, honestly. A losing matchup is a losing matchup is a losing matchup, no matter what numbers are used, making matchups "assuming equally top level play" means a losing matchup with never win, and is a really inaccurate representation of the data being presented.

But then I'm in favour of a "Hard counter" "Soft Counter" "Even enough" system, where anything in the 45-55 range is "Even enough" and most matchcups currently considered as being past 70/30 are "Hard counters."

Because the end of the story is always that matchups come down much more to experience than analysis and are far too influenced by human fluctuation to be assigned hard numbers, no matter how far into the game we explore and affirm as definite.

 

[Pink Reaper]

If you win 25% of the time, then realistically you will never win a set, ever. You will, at best, get one game out of 2 Bo3 sets or 1 out of a Bo5. To that end your match up is, for all intents and purposes, a 0-100 match up. You will always lose.

I actually agree with bones that we spend too much time on really arbitrary numbers(Hax says two match ups are exactly the same stat wise but one character is harder than the other?) when really we could probably just move to a 5 or even a 3 point scale.

 

[Max?]

You guys should just use the OT Matchup system

Evenish?
Advantage
90-10

The degree to which you beat someone is irrelevant. Saying Fox vs. Roy is easier than Fox vs. Bowser is ******** since both characters will never beat said Fox unless they are way better than their opponent. This applies to top/high tier matchups as well.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

i adore the ot matchup system

 

[Impp]

We should adopt a logarithmic scale.

 

[Beat!]

You guys should just use the OT Matchup system

Evenish?
Advantage
90-10

The degree to which you beat someone is irrelevant. Saying Fox vs. Roy is easier than Fox vs. Bowser is ******** since both characters will never beat said Fox unless they are way better than their opponent. This applies to top/high tier matchups as well.

Seriously guys. Just accept this vastly superior matchup system and move on.

 

[Strong Badam]

So many 90-10s....

 

[odinNJ]

But by using a smaller scale we gain precision by lose specificity.

Not disagreeing just sayin

 

[The Star King]

this is fine as long as over half of your list is 100-0 MUs

Umbreon got it.

 

[Divinokage]

We should make a matchup chart depending on the player you face.

 

[Biglard]

Didn't Taj's Mewtwo have a special place in the tier list a few years ago? ^^

 

[Purpletuce]

Lol, log based scale, we would work like pH/pOH. Sounds sweet.

 

[Bones0]

Hey bones. I recall you saying you preferred the approach of viewing match-up numbers based upon equal skill implies match-up number can be used to see percentage of win ratio towards a character.

But, how would you explain that at different skill levels. I feel this view sort of falls apart at different levels since with lack of skill comes with more failed attempts at punishes.

The only reason I see falco/marth being even is because Marth can destroy falco off a single solid combo set-up while I see falco dominates the neutral game. At a lower level, Marth seems pretty formidable with very simple edgeguard set-ups or grab game trickies which are missed at a lower skill level. At the upper end, these "easy" sort of punishes dissolve for the most part and you have to stick stick with the bread and butter punishes such as cg -> utilt/uair.



I always thought that match-ups could lumped together into even or advantage at the high tier end. Peach, Shiek, Marth, Puff, Falco, Fox for example.

The tier list and matchup charts should only ever be based off of top level play. Worse players are irrelevant because they are not playing the current metagame.

this is fine as long as over half of your list is 100-0 MUs

Yeah, I mean most low tiers would probably be put at around 90-10 vs. top tiers, but even low tiers can do stuff sometimes to net a few wins here and there.

 

[MaskedMarth]

I wonder how useful the ratio is at all, actually. Say A loses pretty badly to both B and C but A/B is a volatile matchup that's susceptible to tricks and specific character knowledge whereas A/C is more sedate and simple. A/B and A/C might have the same ratio but in practice A/B is a lot better. If I'm a pro A player in the contention for top 3 at a national, I'm more likely to be knocked out by some middling C user than any B user.

 

[2kool2kare]

S: fox,falco
A: marth sheik
B: jiggs,falcon,peach,icies
C: doc,pikachu,samus,mario,ganon

 

[Kink-Link5]

What is the difference between 30-70 and 0-100.

Serious question. You aren't winning either those matchups in a remotely realistic situation.

"Even enough" "Managable" "Losing Matchup"

 

[Purpletuce]

I think they are relative to how much I have to outplay the other character to win. Kinda a big deal. As in, Falco is really hard for Yoshi, Marth, not so much. Both are in the high tier's favor, but I'm much better off against a Marth.

 

[Kink-Link5]

So Yoshi Marth is

"Managable"?

Hopefully you see what I'm driving at here.

 

[JPOBS]

even
slight dis/advantage
90-10

 

[Max?]

even
slight dis/advantage
90-10

90-10 is the most popular matchup in the game

 

[JPOBS]

the only even matchups are dittos
the only advantage-ish matchups are Falco vs Fox and Marth vs Fox

Everything else is 90-10

 

[past_b]

I think Marth/Falco is the most even matchup in the game outside of Dittos.

 

[Bones0]

the only even matchups are dittos
the only advantage-ish matchups are Falco vs Fox and Marth vs Fox

Everything else is 90-10

Zelda beats Mewtwo 90-10. You heard it here, folks.

 

[Divinokage]

Ganon vs Falcon is pretty even.. I mean they both hit each other with fists and knees.

 

[RFrizzle]

Kage trollin

 

[Divinokage]

If im capable to beat every one of them, does that mean it's even? Or am I better?

 

[Xyzz]

It means they are playing the matchup wrong

Seriously, do you really manage to defeat S2J / Haxx / Mango Falcon in more than like the 5% of matches where you get really lucky with techreads and stuff (blah techreads are not really luck blah)? If so I am mad impressed.

 

[cannedbread]

ganon doesn't even use his knees

 

[MaskedMarth]

If im capable to beat every one of them, does that mean it's even? Or am I better?

You didn't beat Darkrain.

 

[Warhawk]

It means they are playing the matchup wrong

Seriously, do you really manage to defeat S2J / Haxx / Mango Falcon in more than like the 5% of matches where you get really lucky with techreads and stuff (blah techreads are not really luck blah)? If so I am mad impressed.

If I remember correctly the last two sets that Hax and Kage have played Kage won both of them, and this was before Hax became horribly out of practice.