The New Match-up Chart

[t3h Icy]

Updated:

Chart remade and prettier.

Ness = Samus to Ness > Samus

Now, match-ups changes and discussion is still open, but we are essentially done, so the next major step is finally changing the old Tier List.

These are the ranks, according to the chart:

(1) Pikachu
(2) Fox
(3) Kirby
(4) Falcon
(5) Mario
(6) Yoshi
(7) DK
(8) Jigglypuff
(9) Ness
(10) Luigi
(11) Link
(12) Samus

For starters, how should the top section be broken off? Should Pikachu have his own tier? Should Fox and Kirby be in different tiers (considering Fox's large advantages)?

Falcon and Mario, numerically are about equal, and since the chart is based on approximations (55-45, 45-55 are both =), should Mario be higher than Falcon?

The next part is DK's position. Should DK be in the Middle tier with Yoshi, or should he be Low Tier with the others? The reason it's debatable is that the bottom five characters all have disadvantages, and advantages (minding Samus), but DK has three advantages and the other three are neutral, which would make DK slightly broken if there were ever a Low Tier Tournament.

When does Bottom Tier begin, or should there be one at all? Luigi and Link are almost even overall, so where should the cutoff be?

Lastly, should Samus have her own tier for being a terrible character?

This is my opinion on what it should look like.

Top
Pikachu
Fox
Kirby

High
Falcon
Mario

Middle
Yoshi
DK

Low
Jigglypuff
Ness

Bottom
Luigi
Link
Samus

So again, if there are match-ups you still feel are incorrect, bring them up, and also leave your opinion on how the Tier List should be formed.

Thanks to everyone that's helped thus far. I made a list of Contributors under the chart to credit everyone.

 

[Deleted member]

I'd put Kirby in High because he doesn't have the **** of top tier

Samus shouldn't be put into her own tier because she isn't terrible at all

 

[t3h Icy]

I speak that in terms of the chart. =P

 

[Lovage]

my LIST

top:
pika
fox
kirby

high:
falcon
mario
yoshi

middle:
dk
jigglypuff
ness
luigi

low:
link
samus

there's no reason to have a bottom tier

 

[Kefit]

You're right, there's no reason to even consider playing Ness.

 

[Deleted member]

My opinion

Top: Pikachu, Fox
High: Kirby, Falcon, Mario
Mid: Yoshi, DK
Low: Jigglypuff, Ness
Bottom: Luigi, Link, Samus

kirby doesnt have any 70:30 match ups unlike fox and pikachu.
characters below mario have more bad match ups
everyone below DK has at least one 30:70 match up
everyone below ness has at least two 30:70 match ups

 

[Nintendude]

Can we get an updated bar graph? For now this is what I think it should be:

Top:
Pikachu
Fox

High:
Kirby
Falcon
Mario

Middle:
Yoshi
DK
Jigglypuff
Ness

Low:
Luigi
Link
Samus

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Can you provide us with the final totals of the 'character values'? That list will give much more info than just a 'how they rank' list. If... for example... Falcon and Mario were virtually tied, it would not make sense to separate them into separate tiers.

I'd like to see the values chart before I make an opinion... or if you deleted it, I'll just recreate it myself (it's an easy algorithm).



Edit: darn... nintendude barely beat me to it (we posted at the same time too)

but yeah... some way so we can tell how much better some characters are over the rest is better than just the overall list.



Second edit:

Also, I think in terms of determining the tier list itself, we should have a separate thread. Lets keep this to any matchups people want to discuss. Maybe have the chart and values (or graph) on the first post, and then let people post from there.

And looking at the chart in detail, I would go with what ArkiveZero posted:

Pikachu
Fox

Kirby
Falcon
Mario

Yoshi
DK

Jigglypuff
Ness

Luigi
Link
Samus

 

[Lovage]

what's the point of having a bottom tier
characters aren't that bad in this game

 

[SheerMadness]

Yoshis movin on up.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Well... I thought I would point out the change from the lol tier list to our tier list:


1... Pikachu ...... = (1 - 1)
2... Fox .......... +2 (4 - 2)
3... Kirby ......... -1 (2 - 3)
4... Falcon ....... +1 (5 - 4)
5... Mario ........ +2 (7 - 5)
6... Yoshi ......... +2 (8 - 6)
7... DK ........... +2 (9 - 7)
8... Jigglypuff ... -2 (6 - 8)
9... Ness ......... -6 (3 - 9)
10. Luigi .......... = (10-10)
11. Link .......... +1 (12-11)
12. Samus ....... -1 (11-12)

 

[TANK64]

Yea I'm going with ArkiveZero (Not going to copy and paste it- you can scroll)

Yoshis movin on up.

This

 

[t3h Icy]

Match-up Chart Data back up at the request of Blue Yoshi. I think having the tier list discussion in this thread is fine; get everything in that relation all in one place, plus the chart and data are here too, which helps.

Also nice difference Blue Yoshi, I forgot to do that. It seems dropping Ness is the main change. And although I'm not a Yoshi main, I do like that he's now in the top half; I always thought he was underrated in terms of the old Tier List.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I don't see it as Yoshi moving up... I see it more as Ness and Jigglypuff moving down to where they should be. Yoshi moving up is just a consequence of this action.

 

[dch111]

I don't get why people are having issues with a bottom tier. Every tier list has a bottom tier (think about it) regardless of what it's called; it's not like we're calling it "crap tier" or "unplayable characters go here" or something. Maybe using letters instead of words will remove some of the emotional content from the list.

If I were to make a list just based on the values partitions in an OCD manner it'd probably look like this:

Pikachu 4.34

TOP
Fox 3.91

HIGH
Kirby 3.56

MID-HIGH
Falcon 3.36
Mario 3.34

MIDDLE
Yoshi 2.92

MID-LOW
DK 2.73
Jigglypuff 2.62
Ness 2.53

LOW
Luigi 2.36
Link 2.34

BOTTOM
Samus 1.99

This 'feels' the most right number-wise

But for all practical purposes, I'm going with ArkiveZero's version (posted at the top of this page). Maybe with DK, jiggly, and ness together, and yoshi alone though.

I don't see it as Yoshi moving up... I see it more as Ness and Jigglypuff moving down to where they should be. Yoshi moving up is just a consequence of this action.

I see it this way too

 

[Daedatheus]

I don't get why people are having issues with a bottom tier. Every tier list has a bottom tier (think about it) regardless of what it's called; it's not like we're calling it "crap tier" or "unplayable characters go here" or something. Maybe using letters instead of words will remove some of the emotional content from the list.

It doesn't matter. That's how it's already used and perceived in the other two smash games, meaning a precedent has been set and in order to achieve the best uniformity and keep a rigid and comprehensible standard, we should adhere to the pre-existing benchmarks for tier lists. I vote NO BOTTOM TIER YO

 

[dch111]

That's trying to gimp logic, man. Plus, people who play 64 smash a good deal (the ones for whom the list will most concern) will already know the chars in bottom tier aren't unplayable. What does it matter what the other two games do? (Heck, the melee and brawl lists don't even maintain a 'rigid and comprehensible' standard between themselves anyway)

 

[Daedatheus]

Plus, people who play 64 smash a good deal (the ones for whom the list will most concern) will already know the chars in bottom tier aren't unplayable. What does it matter what the other two games do?

Because the players who play smash64 don't care or already know the tiers, and the other two games are where all our new players come from.

The tier list and updated AT lists etc. and all that are for new or new-ish players.

Besides why have more categories for only 12 characters? This shouldn't even be an argument

 

[asianaussie]

Screw logic.

You know, having a bottom tier will make those who come to Smash 64 (from Brawl, once VC SSB64 comes out, and (fewer) from Melee) think Samus is unplayable or a gimmick character. You can argue against that, but people UNFAMILIAR with this game will likely take that sort of approach. Just call it low tier and include Link and Luigi with her.

Edit: And Daedatheus beat me to it.

I also object to your use of the phrase 'OCD manner'.

 

[t3h Icy]

Well, so far it seems people are agreeing to something like this.

Top: Pikachu, Fox
High: Kirby, Falcon, Mario
Middle: Yoshi, DK
Low: Jigglypuff, Ness
Bottom: Luigi, Link, Samus

Except we're indecisive about where Kirby and Luigi are going.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

My opinion

Top: Pikachu, Fox
High: Kirby, Falcon, Mario
Mid: Yoshi, DK
Low: Jigglypuff, Ness
Bottom: Luigi, Link, Samus

kirby doesnt have any 70:30 match ups unlike fox and pikachu.
characters below mario have more bad match ups
everyone below DK has at least one 30:70 match up
everyone below ness has at least two 30:70 match ups

All in favor of this being the tier list or make a separate topic or sticky?

 

[t3h Icy]

New thread created for Tier List Discussion here.

This thread is open for any further discussion of Match-Ups. Discussion regarding the Tier List belongs in the thread that is linked above.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

to me the chart is just color coded no numbers on it is it not loading right or am i understanding how it works wrong?

edit: thanks

 

[t3h Icy]

Red = 1
Orange = 2
Yellow = 3
Green = 4
Blue = 5

 

[firo]

This seems good, although I would still argue that Yoshi is probably Ness's best matchup due to the reasons already explained in previous posts. I'm not sure how, or if, that would alter the overall rankings.

 

[dch111]

Because the players who play smash64 don't care or already know the tiers, and the other two games are where all our new players come from.

I concede on that point.

Besides why have more categories for only 12 characters? This shouldn't even be an argument

That wasn't an argument

Screw logic.

You know, having a bottom tier will make those who come to Smash 64 (from Brawl, once VC SSB64 comes out, and (fewer) from Melee) think Samus is unplayable or a gimmick character. You can argue against that, but people UNFAMILIAR with this game will likely take that sort of approach. Just call it low tier and include Link and Luigi with her.

People unfamiliar with the game won't go straight to advanced techniques and tiers. They'll play the game first for awhile, maybe check gamefaqs for how to get the secret characters, etc. By the time if they wish to be competitive it'll be obvious samus isn't a gimmick.

I also object to your use of the phrase 'OCD manner'.

I can see why you would, but I'd rather not talk about it

 

[asianaussie]

This discussion is pretty pointless.

We have a game where everyone is viable competitively. We want to encourage diversity.

I don't want a Bottom Tier. Hell, I'd just think of them as S, A, B and C. Sure, every list needs a bottom, but actually labelling it as bottom gives an unconscious negativity and makes people unwilling to play those characters from a competitive perspective.

I main Link because I started with him and like his playstyle/character background, but you can't rely on that to boost variety in selection. From a purely competitive point of view, it's detracting from gameplay.

Basically, it's a negative connotation. Just label it as Low or C Tier.

 

[DMoogle]

This discussion is pretty pointless.

We have a game where everyone is viable competitively. We want to encourage diversity.

I don't want a Bottom Tier. Hell, I'd just think of them as S, A, B and C. Sure, every list needs a bottom, but actually labelling it as bottom gives an unconscious negativity and makes people unwilling to play those characters from a competitive perspective.

I agree. I mean, there are only 12 characters. It doesn't need to be split up at all, IMO.

 

[dch111]

This discussion is pretty pointless.

We have a game where everyone is viable competitively. We want to encourage diversity.

I don't want a Bottom Tier. Hell, I'd just think of them as S, A, B and C. Sure, every list needs a bottom, but actually labelling it as bottom gives an unconscious negativity and makes people unwilling to play those characters from a competitive perspective.

I main Link because I started with him and like his playstyle/character background, but you can't rely on that to boost variety in selection. From a purely competitive point of view, it's detracting from gameplay.

Basically, it's a negative connotation. Just label it as Low or C Tier.

I agree, but you can't say low or C tier frees it of that connotation. but this is pretty pointless as you said; we'll leave it at that

 

[Daedatheus]

but this is pretty pointless as you said; we'll leave it at that

Indeed, it's all just labels - the actual order of the tier list won't be changing...

 

[Frogles]

wow how did you guys decide that kirby = jiggs? kirby has range, priority, and power on that little ****. utilt and grabs kill at like 100? kirby camps better too.

how is this even?

 

[t3h Icy]

Ehh, me and Surri also said Kirby > Jigglypuff but when I changed it everyone went nutty. I really don't see why people think Jigglypuff = Kirby.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

you listened to the wrong people

 

[Superstar]

I only disagreed with some arguments. Thinking it more, at least on the skill level Ness was judged by, it'd have to be Kirby > Jiggs.

Jiggs' advantages serve to punish Kirby's mistakes. Better Kirby's don't make so many mistakes.

 

[SilentSlayers]

And better Jigglys make it harder for Kirbys to not get punished. Endless arguement. =P

Either way, I think it's very close. I'm starting to see why perhaps you guys would be right about Kirby > Jiggly, but at the same time, I can't help but think of Jiggly's 0% to death combos. Meh, doesn't bother me, I don't need a tier list. I play whoever I have most fun with.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I would agree to both Kirby = puff and kirby > puff. It's too close to tell in my opinion. It's obveously a Kirby advantage, but is it too small to be >?

 

[Nintendude]

In an effort to make the 5 categories less ambiguous, I've attempted to create a mathematical model to quantify the quality of matchups.

Imagine an infinitely long stock match. Let's say that for a Mario vs. Fox match, on average, for every 6 stocks Fox takes, Mario takes 4 stocks.

This simply translates to 6-4 in ratio form. Then, based on the interpretation of matchup categories as 5-5 = even, 6-4 = advantage, 7-3 and worse = large advantage, this would be an advantage.

Now let's consider Kirby vs. Jiggly. Let's say, for the purposes of this model, that for every 8 stocks Kirby takes, Jiggly takes 6. Let's scale this to a ratio in the 1-10 form:

8*10/(8+6) = 5.7
6*10/(8+6) = 4.3

When rounded, this matchup becomes 6-4, or an "advantage."

Now, how do we deal with counterpicks? This is really difficult but I have an idea. Let's examine Pikachu vs. Fox.

For this example I'll say that the first stage in a best of 3 is random between Hyrule and Dreamland. Let's say that we determine the stock ratios to be 5-5 on Hyrule and 7-4 (Pika takes 7 for every 4 Fox takes) on Dreamland.

In a best of 3 set, Hyrule and Dreamland have equal chances of being chosen for the first match. If Hyrule gets chosen, both characters have an equal chance of winning. If Fox wins, Pika will counterpick Dreamland (or another stage that Fox sucks about as much on), and if Pika wins, Fox will pick Hyrule again. Then it happens again the third match.

Sample space:

H = Hyrule, D = Dreamland
(first stage, second stage, third stage)
HDD
HDH
DHD
DHH
HH
DD

Compute probabilities of each element in the sample space (based on chances of the characters winning on each particular stage). The probability of HH, for example, is .5*.5 = .25. I derived those numbers from H having a 50% chance of showing up in the first match and then a 50% chance of Fox losing, resulting in H being picked again.

With the probabilities of each one, you can then do a weighted average with the stock ratios determined up above to yield a composite stock ratio. Then use the scaling formula to convert it to a 1-10 ratio, round, and you got your matchup result.

There are obviously issues with this approach, and it is ridiculously cumbersome when you factor counterpicks in, but I think it's a good start and it should still do a decent job without factoring in counterpicks. Also, as an engineering student I do a lot of mathematical modeling and this is a fun little project for me to work on with my spare time.

 

[t3h Icy]

Except "Dave's Stupid Rule" nullifies most of that.

 

[Nintendude]

Except "Dave's Stupid Rule" nullifies most of that.

I thought that SSB64 tourneys didn't use DSR since there aren't enough stages. But anyway, the counterpick section was mainly for fun and food for thought. The meat of it still stands.

 

[t3h Icy]

Ehh, true. Maybe if it was modified to the stage you last won at, or something.