Mastering Flesh and Blood means more than just knowing your hero; it’s about understanding their place in the ever-evolving meta. Some heroes thrive consistently across matchups, while others rise and fall depending on their foes, demanding specific tactics and careful preparation. Rather than spending countless hours of gameplay to gain these insights, what if you could access a clear, data-driven view of each hero’s matchup behavior?

By analyzing over a hundred thousand Talishar.net CC games (made available via FaBrary.net), I provide a perspective that reveals where each hero stands in the meta — helping players make more informed decisions and elevate their gameplay faster. To do this, I will present an analysis that maps hero performance into four categories, based on two crucial dimensions: Strength and Consistency.

• Strength reflects a hero’s average win rate across all matchups. This indicates how often a hero wins, weighted by the pick rate of the opposing hero — having a 100% win rate against the least played hero should not be as relevant as winning often against the most played one.
• Consistency measures how stable or reliable a hero’s performance is across different matchups. A highly consistent hero performs similarly across most matchups, while a hero with lower consistency (greater variability) experiences more swings, performing well in some matchups and poorly in others. This measure was also weighted by the opponent’s pick rate.

By combining these two metrics, we can place heroes into one of four quadrants, each providing insights into their overall performance dynamics:

Interpretation warning: if a hero is placed above/below the horizontal line, it does not necessarily mean that their average win rate is higher/lower than 50%, but rather that they are in the top/bottom half of the hero pool. What is important here is therefore where each hero stands relative to the others.

Analyzing the Matrix

When it comes to heroes with a higher variability, it is important to know the shape of the underlying distribution. Some heroes may win a lot of matches and lose a minority, do the opposite, or just be very scattered. To help us understand each hero’s matchup behavior (and to please astrophysicists and Joy Division fans), we can check each hero’s win rate distribution from the plot below.

The first thing to notice is that on average heroes on the right have narrower distributions with higher peaks (most of the matchups concentrate around a specific win rate), while those on the left have lower peaks due to their spreads.

With this knowledge, it’s time to dive into the quadrants.

Quadrant I: Steady Winners (High Strength, High Consistency)

This quadrant represents the most reliable and successful heroes. Not only do they boast high win rates, but their performance is also consistent across matchups, making them dependable choices when it comes to the current average playstyle.

Hero insights

• Viserai leads this category, combining a strong win rate with exceptional consistency. He’s currently a top pick for players seeking both power and reliability. Besides the 70% peak, there is also a smaller peak around the 55%, making his distribution a bit bimodal, but with both modes being above chance.

• Aurora stands out as the one with the most robust performance, suggesting the lack of an obvious archetype that can exploit a weak spot.

Quadrant II: Fluctuating Champions (High Strength, High Variability)

Heroes in this quadrant are strong but variable. They have higher win rates but are inconsistent, meaning that while they may dominate certain matchups, they may be exposed to some vulnerabilities. Players looking to play these heroes should take the time to prepare to cover their weak spots with proper strategy and siding.

Hero insights

• Florian: with most matchups falling above the 50% line, Florian players still seem to have some difficulties when facing Viserai and Kano, both matchups with just a 30% win rate.

• Enigma here is the strongest performer with excellent win rates on average, but struggles against heroes who tend to go wide, including Fai and Azalea, dropping to a 38% win rate when encountering Zen.

• Bravo appears to be the most volatile hero in the current meta. His win rate is around 60% against Dash I\O, Azalea or Zen, but falls rapidly when facing Enigma (12%) or Nuu (29%). This skews his distribution to the left, highlighting the weak spots.

• Prism displays a very interesting distribution. What pushes her performance even more above average are a set of very favorable matchups against heroes like Kano and Verdance (80% win rate), while scoring a solid 60% agains the more robust Nuu.

Quadrant III: Volatile Contenders (Low Strength, High Variability)

These heroes may find success in niche matchups, but their overall potential is limited. To make it through the current meta they would need to cover several weaknesses, which could become significantly more challenging.

Hero insights

• Betsy stands out as a hero who struggles significantly, but presents nevertless some more favorable matchups, getting close to a 50% win rate against some otherwise tough opponents like Azalea, Dash I\O and even Kayo.

• Arakni & Uzuri: as my previous analysis has clustered them together, it is not surprise to see them close even here. Despite the overall weaker performance, their performance is above 50% against brutes, getting as high as 60% with Levia. They also seem to be an easy target for the top meta heroes, falling below 30% against Enigma, Florian and Viserai.

Quadrant IV: Consistent Underdogs (Low Strength, High Consistency)

Heroes in this quadrant are characterized by lower win rates which remain consistent across most matchups. Their strategy does not seem to exploit other’s weaknesses, nor are they hit too hard in a specific spot.

Hero insights

Oscilio is currently the weakest consistent performer, struggling to find his way in most matchups. Considering he is one of the most recent heroes to join the game, could it be that his players still have to discover his best setup and strategy?

Ser Boltyn has recently received some new cool cards and equipment, but they were not enough to push his average performance significantly higher, leaving his win rate stable, mostly below the 50% mark. As a Boltyn player myself, I wouldn’t mind another small boost, in the meantime, I am ready to rely on my skill and a bit of luck.

Conclusion and Strategic Implications

While some heroes boast both high win rates and stability, others show potential in their variability or even consistent underperformance. For players, understanding where their chosen hero falls in this matrix can offer strategic insights to refine their gameplay. New players can benefit from this analysis as it should give them an idea on what to expect from their matchups when picking up their first hero.

For players (like myself) whose main hero does not currently fall in the Stable Winners or Fluctuating Champions quadrants, do not get discouraged, as the beauty of this game is that it is in constant change. Consider also that these analyses are based on online data from players with all skill levels. What they capture is the “average performance of a hero in the hands of an average player”. The win and matchup rates can significantly change between players. Still, some weaknesses are hard to handle even with skill, but not impossible. The important is to know what to prepare for.

When it comes to competitive play, bringing an underplayed hero may also benefit from the ‘surprise’ element against players who mostly trained against the top meta. Plus, I must say that managing to perform well with an underdog can be quite rewarding and you can be more than sure people will be cheering for you.

Whether you prefer a hero that is more consistent or enjoy navigating a trickier terrain, this matrix can guide your decisions, helping you maximize your chances of success and fun!

Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my thanks to the Trieste Flesh and Blood community for their continuous support, encouragement, and feedback on the initial versions of the manuscript.