Official SWF Matchup Chart v3.0

[Ghostbone]

Snake's at least 4th, better than Olimar, Falco and Marth for sure.

He has no bad matchups except maybe Pikachu. (If there's anything the Japanese have taught us, it's that Snake vs Olimar is at least even for Snake...)

 

[Rizen]

Condensed version:
SS: Meta Knight
S: Ice Climbers
A+: Olimar, Diddy Kong
A-: Marth, Snake, Falco
B: Pikachu, Zero Suit Samus, Wario
C+: Lucario, King Dedede, Toon Link
C: Wolf, Fox, Mr. Game & Watch, Pit
C-: R.O.B., Peach
D: Kirby, Donkey Kong, Sonic, Ike, Sheilda, Sheik, Ness, Yoshi
E: Luigi, Pokémon Trainer, Lucas
F: Mario, Samus, Bowser, Captain Falcon, Link, Jigglypuff, Zelda, Ganondorf

I can see Snake being above Marth but I don't much about him. Snake's a top tier character for sure IDK why anyone would think he's bad.

 

[Cassio]

Marth and ZSS became overrated from one strong event. Though ZSS was underrated before that, so luckily there was some temperance with her and she is probably fine where she is, but I never really saw Marth above or the same level as snake/falco.

Late Edit: Actually Im gonna brag a bit. Called this during the apex results hype .

 

[Dekillsage]

all of a sudden people think snake is good again
I see

 

[Sinister Slush]

Snake has always been good, just the last few that mattered quit or went to MK.
Fatal? Bizkit? Ally? Razer?
gone
MVD last one basically.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Snake is still the 3rd best character imo, if only by process of elimination. This metagame has become about characters being able to compete with MK and ICs - Snake is one of the only character who can do both very convincingly and barely loses any matchup outside of that. Falco gets ***** too hard by ICs though by sheer character design he is broken.

 

[Ghostbone]

Snake is still the 3rd best character imo, if only by process of elimination. This metagame has become about characters being able to compete with MK and ICs - Snake is one of the only character who can do both very convincingly and barely loses any matchup outside of that.

Diddy's still a contender for 3rd, who can compete vs both MK and ICs well and has an arguably better overall matchup spread.

 

[DEHF]

Diddy's still a contender for 3rd, who can compete vs both MK and ICs well and has an arguably better overall matchup spread.

There's no way Diddy is 3rd best. Snake, Olimar, Falco, and Marth are better than him.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Olimar and Marth aren't better than Diddy Kong imo. Snake and Falco are though but Diddy is still probably top 5 in the game.

 

[Ishiey]

There's no way Diddy is 3rd best. Snake, Olimar, Falco, and Marth are better than him.

Care to elaborate? This is an interesting claim... I'm unsure of where to place Diddy but to say all those characters are better than him is pretty harsh, albeit not implausible.

 

[WindMajor]

Dammit you guys, this is the MU Chart thread, not the Tier List thread, lrn2read.

 

[Desu~]

Tier list is influenced by a character's performance on other match-ups.
So it makes sense i guess.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Marth and ZSS became overrated from one strong event. Though ZSS was underrated before that, so luckily there was some temperance with her and she is probably fine where she is, but I never really saw Marth above or the same level as snake/falco.

Late Edit: Actually Im gonna brag a bit. Called this during the apex results hype .

I wish there was a single event we could point to that might justify how overrated Pikachu is.

 

[Djent]

I wish there was a single event we could point to that might justify how overrated Pikachu is.

You mean the one where the best Pikachu lost to an inferior player who had comparable matchup experience, then got double 2-stocked by the guy who supposedly had a "Pikachu problem?"

I think that event already happened. Can't recall when, though.

 

[Funkmasterblitz]

MK's matchup chart is all wrong. It should look like this:

MK- 0
IC's - +1
ZSS- +1
Everybody else- +5

 

[Cassio]

Oi, not sure why you brought up pika but im not trying to cause a personal debate. In any case, you're referencing the same tournament a pikachu got top 8 and outplaced those below him + Marth (for the Nth time)? Falco as well but there werent relevant falcos there.

I was completely expecting Tyrant to beat ESAM. Hes the only top MK that has strong knowledge and experience in the MU, and ESAMs good but not too strong at it. Tyrant is pretty underrated particularly on MU's he knows like Falco, Olimar, Marth, etc. I think ESAM did better vs Zero in terms of gameplay, his only issue was landing a kill. He kept relying on jump > QAC > nair which even players with novice experience vs pikachu can see and react to.

 

[Osennecho]

How about we all just agree that Marf is bad.

 

[xDD-Master]

No, Mario is bad

 

[Djent]

Oi, not sure why you brought up pika but im not trying to cause a personal debate. In any case, you're referencing the same tournament a pikachu got top 8 and outplaced those below him + Marth (for the Nth time)? Falco as well but there werent relevant falcos there.

I was completely expecting Tyrant to beat ESAM. Hes the only top MK that has strong knowledge and experience in the MU, and ESAMs good but not too strong at it. Tyrant is pretty underrated particularly on MU's he knows like Falco, Olimar, Marth, etc. I think ESAM did better vs Zero in terms of gameplay, his only issue was landing a kill. He kept relying on jump > QAC > nair which even players with novice experience vs pikachu can see and react to.

Pikachu is almost certainly better than Marth (although Apex broke the trend of him placing higher). I'm not concerned about his tier list placement so much (he should actually move to 7th IMO). It's more about his matchup spread, and the poorly-supported claims that people make about it. MK and Snake are the prime examples here (though I won't harp on the Snake one, as it's not relevant to the immediate argument). In fact, if people's claims about Pika's matchups were true, then he'd have to be even HIGHER than 7th (which he should already occupy even without any ridiculous optimism).

Perhaps Pikachu has better tools in the MK matchup than I'm giving him credit for. But we're 5 years into the game and this is the BEST PIKACHU we're talking about. The guy who streams himself labbing for hours on end and travels OoS at least several times a year. If he's still "not too strong at [the MU]," then I think it's legitimate to question if it's even a strong MU at all. I'm absolutely not trying to make this personal, because I have a lot of respect for ESAM's skill. But when you're the only good representative of your character (another hint that Pika enthusiasts miss), you kind of HAVE to talk about the person. But I don't mean that as a lack of respect. I mean it as a case study of how an extraordinarily talented player still struggles in a MU he has equal or more experience in, and that that should be taken as evidence against the claim that the MU is even. I'm not just saying this to be a **** - I want to falsify a poorly-corroborated theory.

 

[Cassio]

Oh, I was referencing SFP bringing up pika being overrated not you. I dont mind talking about pika, I'll edit this with more info in a sec though.

 

[Espy Rose]

Please don't. No one reads it.

 

[Cassio]

Anyways, keep in mind the point of view Im using when making this post:

Was reading through the bigger part of this thread and for me it seems like the brawl community have the same "problem" as the melee community has when it comes to tierlists. WHY is everyone putting so much focus on results?

If results is THAT important why is it even necessary to vote in the first place?
Results are fact and personal preference is a opinion. I don't understand why the system should be based on opinons when everyone use results (facts) as the clear argument.

However I have a lot of times said when I have been talking about this topic with melee players that I don't think results are THAT important when it comes to tierlists.

Of course it all comes down to what the community want the tierlist to represant (maybe it excist some generall rule for it I don't know) but I do think some kind of "human level"/potencial should be what the tierlist represent. By putting so much effort into the results you basically just say who the top players are without thinking about how good the chars truley are.

I also think the "lazy" way of thinking that becomes a results of this "results-based" lists is a problem for many players.

Its an unfortunate truth that success in smash seems to breed from previous success, with notable exceptions. As opposed to travelling around and playing lots of people, the best players come from specific regions and those that are best at fighting MK are heavily concentrated in one area as well. FL is not an area that has a strong concentration of good MKs (I think hes half banned there?).

On that note yes I am relying on my knowledge and intuition of both characters. As a pika player from SoCal, MK is a MU I feel I understand very well. In personal skill my execution is very poor because I have a distaste for training mode and practice, but in spite of that Ive still been able to perform well against strong MKs in my region (and out of region). Point being I understand the results-based arguments, but this isnt a results based chart. If it was things would be significantly different for pika alone (let alone other characters) with things like +1 vs Marth, Lucario, GW, Kirby, Wario; -1 vs Olimar; +2 vs almost all his current +1's; and then you could talk about worse MU's vs MK and Peach. Instead I rely more on my character knowledge particularly for those I know, which is frustrating because the people who tend to talk about pika the most and make judgments on his MUs tend to know the least about him. However I am happy to discuss the MK MU or others with anyone willing to listen as well as they talk.

In terms of pikas MU chart overall. My opinion has been:
slight disadvantage: Diddy, Olimar, ICs
Neutral : Marth, MK, Peach, ROB, (GW, Lucario, Wario, Kirby)
-others-
I'm certain people would call this overrated, but I think thats only true when unweighted. If you examine the MUs, pikas 3 worst are also the 2nd, 3rd, 4th best characters in the game and extremely common especially at the top of the bracket. Not to mention that even MUs are still meant to be difficult. I think when all this is taken into account he fits snuggly at 7th/8th/9th. Him Marth and ZSS are more or less indistiguishable

 

[Espy Rose]

Reported.

 

[Seagull Joe]

Snake has always been good, just the last few that mattered quit or went to MK.
Fatal? Bizkit? Ally? Razer?
gone
MVD last one basically.

Bizkit and Ally were at the tourney. Ally just went and Bizkit got bracket ****ed (Lost to Mr. R and Atomsk).

Now yall think is garbage again and / are better. So funny.

 

[Dekillsage]

I don't think bizkit plays much these days either. Makes me cri evry tim

Time to sit here and see if people start saying the things I've been saying for months

 

[Djent]

Stuff.

That Armada post was excellent, so it makes me happy to hear you're considering that approach for your methodology. I don't want to advocate some sort of naive empricism that simply makes up numbers based on comparing the best players of each character in a vacuum. For one, the best players of each character are rarely perfect even matches, so you have to account for small discrepancies in skill and experience when making comparisons. Furthermore, it's still possible that there are still things players just aren't doing right in particular MUs. So my approach is more to constrain possible explanations to those that fit current data, with the allowance that changes in data will warrant changes in theory.

All that said, I'm surprised that you would consider results to show Pika at +1 Kirby and Lucario. I assume you're thinking of Trela (who actually did lose to Pika a lot) and not Lee Martin (who used to do very well in the MU). I also seem to recall ChuDat going pretty much dead even against Anther and ESAM. Most of those results are so old that they shouldn't even be counted anymore, so it's not a big deal. Wario could be argued for +1 on empirical grounds if Reflex were remotely on the same level as ESAM. As it stands we don't have "top Warios" in the US (though LOE1 may get there soon). Pika/Marth would definitely be even at the very least from current and relevant data, though.

You're way more qualified to theorize about MU ratios than I am. I'm bad at Smash and barely play anymore. But in the end I think there's a reciprocal relationship between theory and results. The more of the latter you get, the more problematic it becomes if your theories predict different things than you see within (properly-controlled) results ratios. You can either fault the theory or the results, and it seems like this is where we diverge. I argue that the actual results between the best Pika and the best MKs are robust and lopsided enough to warrant revising the theory that the MU is even. You can explain this in terms of what ESAM isn't doing right if you'd like, but I'd be surprised if someone who dedicated himself so thoroughly to his character would still have a lot to learn at this phase in the game. Maybe I'm overestimating ESAM or underrating this game's depth, but it's a worry I can't seem to shake. I'd love to be wrong and see a new electrifying era of Brawl, but I don't expect I will.

 

[Osennecho]

Now yall think is garbage again and / are better. So funny.

I've always thought that.

 

[Seagull Joe]

That Armada post was excellent, so it makes me happy to hear you're considering that approach for your methodology. I don't want to advocate some sort of naive empricism that simply makes up numbers based on comparing the best players of each character in a vacuum. For one, the best players of each character are rarely perfect even matches, so you have to account for small discrepancies in skill and experience when making comparisons. Furthermore, it's still possible that there are still things players just aren't doing right in particular MUs. So my approach is more to constrain possible explanations to those that fit current data, with the allowance that changes in data will warrant changes in theory.

All that said, I'm surprised that you would consider results to show Pika at +1 Kirby and Lucario. I assume you're thinking of Trela (who actually did lose to Pika a lot) and not Lee Martin (who used to do very well in the MU). I also seem to recall ChuDat going pretty much dead even against Anther and ESAM. Most of those results are so old that they shouldn't even be counted anymore, so it's not a big deal. Wario could be argued for +1 on empirical grounds if Reflex were remotely on the same level as ESAM. As it stands we don't have "top Warios" in the US (though LOE1 may get there soon). Pika/Marth would definitely be even at the very least from current and relevant data, though.

You're way more qualified to theorize about MU ratios than I am. I'm bad at Smash and barely play anymore. But in the end I think there's a reciprocal relationship between theory and results. The more of the latter you get, the more problematic it becomes if your theories predict different things than you see within (properly-controlled) results ratios. You can either fault the theory or the results, and it seems like this is where we diverge. I argue that the actual results between the best Pika and the best MKs are robust and lopsided enough to warrant revising the theory that the MU is even. You can explain this in terms of what ESAM isn't doing right if you'd like, but I'd be surprised if someone who dedicated himself so thoroughly to his character would still have a lot to learn at this phase in the game. Maybe I'm overestimating ESAM or underrating this game's depth, but it's a worry I can't seem to shake. I'd love to be wrong and see a new electrifying era of Brawl, but I don't expect I will.

No top 's? Who's Reflex?

 

[Djent]

He's very good, but he's not as good as ESAM (which was the important part for the comparison in question). Sorry if I sold him short.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

There's no way Diddy is 3rd best. Snake, Olimar, Falco, and Marth are better than him.

Larry just doesn't want more players picking up his worst match up

 

[Ghostbone]

Now yall think is garbage again

Marth has been garbage and overrated for 5 years.
I don't see how anyone thinks he's better than Snake, Falco, Pikachu and ZSS.

 

[Delta-cod]

Marth has been garbage and overrated for 5 years.
I don't see how anyone thinks he's better than Snake, Falco, Pikachu and ZSS.

Yeah. I don't see how Marth is better than Marth either.

Wat the quote and what I'm seeing are different. That's silly.

 

[Ghostbone]

Wat the quote and what I'm seeing are different. That's silly.

Smashboards is dumb and I'm trash at post formatting.

 

[Seagull Joe]

He's very good, but he's not as good as ESAM (which was the important part for the comparison in question). Sorry if I sold him short.

He's beaten Esam...

 

[Djent]

So has McPe (on the same day, in fact). Is McPe as good as ESAM?

 

[Ghostbone]

So has McPe (on the same day, in fact). Is McPe as good as ESAM?

Yes
/inui logic is infallible

 

[Djent]

Oh right, silly me!

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Bizkit and Ally were at the tourney. Ally just went and Bizkit got bracket ****ed (Lost to Mr. R and Atomsk).

Now yall think is garbage again and / are better. So funny.

At least I'm consistent.

I always thought he was overrated.

Also, ESAM is overrated.

 

[BSP]

Now yall think is garbage again and / are better. So funny.

I don't think Marth's garbage, but I'd be hard pressed to call him better than those, and even Falco, despite his lackluster ICs MU.

 

[Famous]

No, Mario is bad

Woah, woah...Go home sir, your obviously drunk.