Character Matchups Are Irrelevant

[HugS™]

I haven't written here in a while, and with a heavy heart at the loss of my Frankenstein avatar, I write the following to possibly help some of you deal with the mental blocks associated with character matchups, especially as you approach the biggest tournament of all time, EVO 2013. Now here's event where you'd be a fool to assume you'll be able to dodge any given character in the bracket.

I've seen arguments left and right over the implications of the matchup charts. Some people believe they serve as an indicator of which character should win in a vacuum of sorts, where player ability can be put to a side, and the outcomes are predicted solely on the physics of each character. It's a guide where you'd be ill-advised to pick, say, Samus against a Sheik or Falcon.

To me, these lists serve only as a reminder of who will have to work harder to achieve the same desired outcome. But even that, I feel, is irrelevant, and I'll explain why.

When it comes to putting your skills to the test at a tournament, I believe there is only one acceptable goal: perfect execution. If that is not your only acceptable level of output, there is something wrong with your competitive mindset. And if you think about it, a Sheik player might be at an advantage against a Samus player in the sense that the Sheik wouldn't have to try as hard to achieve perfect execution in the matchup. But the closer both players get to perfect execution, the more of a wash the whole advantage becomes.

The way I always looked at it was: "If I could take all the time in the world, and think of a way to win in a given situation, then there is a solution, and it's my lack of proper execution that caused me to lose". In a mindset where your only goal is perfect execution, there is no room to blame your character, nor the advantages of another. And you never should. If you played perfectly, it wouldn't matter if Ice Climbers could wobble you. If you played perfectly, it wouldn't matter if Falcon could combo Samus with ease. I absolutely loathe the word "impossible" when it comes to playing a matchup. Sadly enough, it gets thrown around all the time. It gets to the point where people will even try to convince a player that they're wrong about their chances in a matchup, despite that player's proven ability to beat top-flight competition in that very same matchup.

I mean, I might be dating myself, but didn't Kage beat Tope? Didn't Linguini take out overtriforce? I've even had people tell me I'd lose to character X if I played a player that knew what he was doing, as my character would give me no options. It's absolutely ridiculous that people would go so far as to blame the shortcomings of some of the best competition in the nation before admitting that a given matchup may be just as winnable as any other. And that's really the end-all disadvantage in a matchup, a player's willingness to lose it before it really even begins. I want to stress this: the disadvantage barely exists if your only goal is to think and execute perfectly.
Falcon combos Samus? I only play to not get caught.
Sheik's grab destroys Samus? I only play to not get grabbed.
Did I get caught? My fault. Did I get grabbed? My fault.

And if you think the pursuit of perfection is a turn off, then you should be playing casually, not to win.

I understand there's a sense of outdated stubbornness involved in the decision to stick to one character through thick and thin. I'm not suggesting anyone do that. However, there is nothing outdated about taking responsibility over your own shortcomings, rather than blaming your character for your loss. And hopefully, that type of mindset will aid players in mastering characters, possibly several, before turning to the next flavor of the month to save the day.

Good luck at EVO everyone

 

[D1]

Aaaaaand tweeted it out also gave ya credit.

 

[t3h Icy]

So Lord Zedd can beat Ivan Ooze? But really, good stuff.

Didn't Linguini take out overtriforce?

Other way around.

 

[Max?]

Year of the Kirby

 

[Strong Badam]

i don't at all agree with the general idea of the op, but i agree with the suggested competitive mindset. disadvantaged matchups will always be a thing, it's not rocket science why mango chooses fox over mario in relevant tournament sets. that said, dwelling on the disadvantage isn't particularly productive to overcoming that disadvantage, i agree. i eventually decided that i would overcome that disadvantage by eliminating it, by choosing a better character. been doing better in tourney ever since.

note that choosing a poor character is your fault and shouldn't be used as a john. this game is very badly balanced, and as such character choice is a heavily tested skill and always will be. putting your character select icon on a bad character is as much a mistake as air dodging to your death when trying to wavedash to the ledge. the sooner a player realizes this, the sooner they can improve.

 

[Deleted member]

in application, this doesn't work. as you progress further and further into higher level play, the difference in character attributes becomes more apparent as the players become more adept at playing to their relative strengths. if you are constantly thinking that it is your fault that your character loses to a specific type of interaction, you are not honestly evaluating the situation and setting yourself up for long-term failure. you are functionally limited by what you can and cannot do within the game and to think otherwise will not only hurt and further skew your perceptions, but more importantly it will stifle any real growth that you may have from a proper trial-and-error analysis. sometimes players really do have mental blocks and need to get past them, but it needs to be done in a rational manner with appropriate framing of the situation. following your advice in the original post will certainly lead to self-contempt and depreciation when they cannot solve a problem that is not within the game's boundaries to do so.

 

[Rickety]

Thank you very much for writing this, Hugo! :]

Just the other day, I was looking through your old AllisBrawl blog for advice,
so getting to read something new was a real treat! <3

 

[HugS™]

Well, that's the point isn't it? To solve a problem within the game's boundaries? If you can tie a chain of events that led to the loss of your stock to a poorly placed fsmash, I don't see the harm in thinking you should have been smarter about your choices. But, if you cannot fathom a reasonable solution, then I can see the issue with this mindset. I suspect that would be the case with characters like Ness and Kirby, and I didn't mean to include the whole cast in this. I'm not advising blind devotion. This is meant to be applied in a situation where a player can pinpoint deficiencies in their choices, where a reasonable solution can be applied.

And btw Strongbad, I think if Mango was actually dedicated to Mario, he'd have similar or better success than Shroomed. And shroomed is a guy who's widely considered top 10, with a character like Doc. Also, I think that has more to do with Mango's playstyle. You can't look at a guy like Mango and say "he never makes mistakes". He makes plenty, and Fox/Falco cushion that a lot better than Jiggs or Mario can.

Actually that gets me thinking, what high level mid-tier main would have better success if they turned into a sheik/fox main? I've never seen it. I think the idea of switching mains to get better results applies more at the lower levels, where character choices can impact the outcome more than skill can. I mean, I can't see a top player blowing everyone's mind by becoming strictly a Falco main. Also I'm aware there are top players that switch characters to make it easier on themselves, that's not what I mean by switching mains. I suspect they'd be quicker to say that they switch because it's too hard, rather than to say a matchup is "impossible". That word is thrown around too often at lower levels.

 

[Divinokage]

Actually that gets me thinking, what high level mid-tier main would have better success if they turned into a sheik/fox main? I've never seen it. I think the idea of switching mains to get better results applies more at the lower levels, where character choices can impact the outcome more than skill can. I mean, I can't see a top player blowing everyone's mind by becoming strictly a Falco main. Also I'm aware there are top players that switch characters to make it easier on themselves, that's not what I mean by switching mains. I suspect they'd be quicker to say that they switch because it's too hard, rather than to say a matchup is "impossible". That word is thrown around too often at lower levels.

You've never seen it because people aren't willing to put THAT much time into a new character to learn. It takes at least 2 years to be proficient with a character. I remember in the beginning Mango's spacies weren't quite as solid 3 years ago when you compare it with now. He just chose to put time into it, that's really all there is to it.

 

[Hax]

while the OP is good for the sake of maintaining a good competitive mindset/discouraging johning, it's strictly wrong. you're trying to claim that 26 entirely different entities with vastly different characteristics are magically on even ground, or as you put it, so close to being on even ground that the differences between them hardly matter ("the disadvantage barely exists if your only goal is to think and execute perfectly"). the fact of the matter is that Melee is quite unbalanced, and as you go down the tier list, characters start having to be significantly more "perfect" in order to win. what you fail to realize is that you're giving the character who is not favored in the matchup a benefit; you are making him much more "perfect" than his opponent who is playing a character that is favored.

all the characters in this game are vastly different, which means they have different amounts of potential, rates of expansion, difficulty, and most certainly different matchups. if you apply the same amount of perfection to both of the imaginary people playing, the person playing the character favored in the matchup is going to win. some matchups in this game, such as Sheik vs Ganondorf or Falcon vs DK, are so skewed that even a TAS Ganondorf/DK may not be able to win. when you reach a certain level of perfection with Fox/Falco, beating them with the other 24 characters becomes impossible.

you're trying to encourage a positive attitude, but what you claim is not true.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

There's no such thing as perfect, perfection is an infinite concept because there is always room for growth. If you can plan 400 moves in advance, I can always plan for 401 moves in advance. Perfect is fictional concept when it comes to competition. I think the idea is that if your execution was more closer to the infinite concept of "perfect" than every smash player on the planet (not a likely scenario but a perfectly plausible scenario) you'd never lose any matchups. This is true. If your execution was better than anyone elses by a healthy margin, matchups would be entirely irrelevant to you as an upper mid to high tier character at least. I don't see how this is argueable despite character matchups advantages and disadvantages.

To put it simply, it would be saying "If I was that much better than you I would never lose despite my character being worse." This is true.

Whether attaining such execution to bridge the gap between characters is realistic is up for debate. But the mentality for approaching your character this way I agree with Mr Frankenstein is the best way to go.

(However I think this only applies to mid tier and above character. Anyone lower just doesn't have the options in way too many different scenarios. You can't execute when you have almost nothing to work with. )

 

[Raccoon Chuck]

I agree that many situations have plausible escapes that a countered character and the player can use....however; it's a characters relative ability to escape from these situations that creates character match ups. Let's face it, a Bowser player just doesn't have the escape techniques a Marth player has when fighting a Samus. This is known to be true based on how quickly the projectiles can be deployed, Marths ability to evade and cut through projectiles with ease, and Bowser's lack of options when faced with a wall of cancel-able projectiles. The Bowser player does not have the options necessary to flawlessly evade.

 

[Pi]

there's enough variables in movement and timing in melee to make any paper matchup far less significant than the player on the losing end would like to admit. get good, overcome obstacles, melee has all the tools you need

unless ur pichu

 

[Krynxe]

You guys are horribly misinterpreting HugS' post as "tiers don exits"

 

[Raccoon Chuck]

"Why Character MatchUps are Irrelevant"
Character MatchUps = Tiers
Irrelevant = To Have No Coherence to a Given Subject +
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiers Do Not Exist in High Level Play.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Well, the first thing that sticks out to me is that I don't know what the difference between

Some people believe [matchup charts] serve as an indicator of which character should win in a vacuum of sorts, where player ability can be put to a side, and the outcomes are predicted solely on the physics of each character.

this, and

To me, these lists serve only as a reminder of who will have to work harder to achieve the same desired outcome.

this is.
So in one condition, matchup charts say who should win if both player skills are equal (and high, I assume). In the other condition, matchup charts say who should work harder, and by implication who needs to work less hard, to win. Is there really any difference between these two conditions? I have to wonder if "skill" from the first condition is simply being replaced by "effort" in the second, and then I have to wonder if that actually means anything different. Everyone should be putting forth their maximum effort in tournament, or at the very least enough effort to outperform your opponent's lesser skill when there is a significant skill gap. The point is that if one character demands less effort to win, what does that imply? I think that's really what the matchup charts are trying to figure out. The bottom line is that if both players are giving their maximum effort, as they should, then the only remaining factors in who will win is player skill, character limitations, and matchup quirks. If you say that the players are of equal skill with their characters, then that only leaves two things: isolated character limitations and matchup quirks. If you say the isolated character limitations are relatively equal, then that leaves matchup quirks and player skill. Player skill and isolated character limitations are equal? That leaves matchup quirks. Etc., etc., etc. Sure, measuring this kind of stuff is nearly impossible to get completely right, but I think we're doing a pretty good job. It's an ongoing effort, but there's nothing wrong with that.


Here's my take on all this.
Execution is the surface. Execution is the necessary prerequisite to being a good player. Execution does not make a player good. Execution rewards the player with the necessary tools and options in order to be good. Success is not just limited by the players ability to execute well, but to understand all the options available to him in all scenarios regarding the game, characters, matchup, stage, etc., and execute the right thing at the right time. What separates the good players from the great players isn't how well they press buttons. Anyone who has put forth the effort to go through the boring training sessions to get their tech skill down can press buttons well, and that should be most of us in the competitive scene. No, what separates the great from the good is their ability to understand their tools and be able to focus on the human element. Yes, if you put two perfect machines against each other, one designed to grab and the other designed to avoid getting grabbed, the one designed to avoid getting grabbed will probably win. But that's because machines lack what we have: foresight; flexibility; adaptability. Humans make poor decisions sometimes (note: poor decisions, not poor execution. Poor execution occurs as well but I would argue that that's less detrimental unless it's consistent, which it won't be at high level play. Poor decisions can be perfectly executed and get you killed). Humans have habits. Humans have patterns. Is the opponents job to find these out and exploit them. You have to have good execution to do this efficiently, but more importantly you have to have strong presence of mind to recognize these things mid-match. It's your job to avoid getting exploited while doing the same to your opponent. I'm just barely scratching the surface here, but this is where Smash's true depth comes from, if you ask me. The constant struggle to change up which tools you are using in a match, while at the same time being extremely aware of the tools your opponent is using.

I view tech skill the same way I view chops in music. If you are unfamiliar with the term, in music "chops" refers to a musician's technical ability - things like speed, dexterity, endurance, accuracy, etc. A player can have god-like chops, but if she gets too caught up in just that, she is only exercising. There's a difference between exercising and making music. No one wants to watch someone do what she does when she practices alone in her room. Sure, it can be impressive from a mechanical standpoint, but that's not what makes music. You do that so you have those tools to use when you see fit. What makes a musician great isn't her ability to move her hands fast, but her ability to recognize the right context and time to move her hands fast to create something special. The better your chops are, the more tools you have available, sure, but that doesn't matter if you don't know when to use them. Throwing in random distasteful sweeps on guitar, or metric-modulations on drums, for instance, will result in... well, crap. The same applies to tech skill in Smash. I don't care that you can multi-shine on command if you keep using it whenever your opponent buffer rolls away or whatever. I don't care that you can flawlessly SHFFL with Fox all day every day if you can't actually bait your opponent into it, or keep getting baited by your opponent. I don't care that you can hand-off perfectly with Ice Climbers if you can't recognize the right times to get a grab. These small intricacies - how to bait your opponent, how to recognize a little pattern, or how to manipulate your opponent and create advantageous positions, etc. - are what make great players great. This isn't a matter of execution, it's a matter of intelligent use of execution. Very, very, very different. Your execution won't save you when your opponent figures you out. I don't care if your execution is perfect, because you can still perfectly execute poor decisions and get punished for it.

I guess my point is to say that perfect execution means literally nothing if you don't know how to use it. Execution should be viewed as simply the prerequisite required to allow yourself the options necessary in order to succeed. Good decision making trumps all, it just so happens that you have more decisions available to make when you have good execution. Execution is shallow; a tool in a tool box that is only as good as the human's comprehension of its potential, circumstantial use.

I know this is kinda vague speech I'm using, but I'm hoping you can grasp how this overview applies in match. If you want to have a more practical application of what I'm saying, my advice to all new and rising players is this: Work on execution gradually. Only try to do as much as you are confident you can use properly. Add more tools to your tool box, but only as you truly internalize the tools you already have. I know I'm being vague here, but I'm purposely trying to just scratch the surface. Smash is an incredibly, incredibly deep game.

And if you were somehow including all this under the term "execution," then my bad. Ignore me, above is an argument of semantics.

I just noticed that your post includes "think" and execute. Better, but I still can't agree with such a hard emphasis on execution.

 

[Praxis]

Hi HugS! I wanted to drop by with a counterpoint and get your thoughts.

I agree with the goal of perfect execution. I also agree that as players approach perfection, matchups appear to approach even.

However, fighting games frequently have instant moments of uneven rock-paper-scissors; where even if you could freeze the game and take all day to decide, there isn't necessarily a "perfect" decision. David Sirlin called the ability to win these decisionmaking moments "Yomi". This is much like Poker (which I've played with competitive players as well); there are times where there is a "best option" but not necessarily a "perfect option". You have to base your decision on what your opponent's best option is and what they're motivated to do and how they're likely to play it.

Sometimes, you have a situation where there is no perfect option, and you are responding based on your prediction of your opponent.

In these situations, the character with the better options has an advantage.

I'm going to create a custom game of Rock Paper Scissors to demonstrate this.

In regular Rock Paper Scissors, both players have a 1/3 chance of winning, and 1/3 chance of losing.

In this game, Player 1 is allowed to pick two options at once. His options have priority. Player 2, however, can only pick one. If Player 2 survives both attacks, he wins if he beats either option.

For example, Player 1 can pick both rock and scissors. If Player 1 picks Paper, he loses to Scissors. If he picks Scissors, he loses to Rock. If he picks Rock, though, he ties with rock and beats scissors, so he wins.

So, Player 2 still has a 1/3 chance of winning, but a 2/3 chance of losing. The "perfect" execution still results in the same score, but in this case, "perfect" is impossible without being able to read minds. Thus, I'd give odds on Player 1 winning.


In "perfect" play, when execution becomes automatic, the pivotal points in the game boil down to a rapid-fire game of rock-paper-scissors with uneven rewards (which adds an element of reading to the game, since you know how people are motivated to react). Would it not stand to reason, then, that a character with better options still has an advantage in those moments?

 

[iRobinhoood]

You guys are horribly misinterpreting HugS' post as "tiers don exits"

I think most people need to read this comment.

 

[danieljosebatista]

all the characters in this game are vastly different, which means they have different amounts of potential, rates of expansion, difficulty, and most certainly different matchups. if you apply the same amount of perfection to both of the imaginary people playing, the person playing the character favored in the matchup is going to win. some matchups in this game, such as Sheik vs Ganondorf or Falcon vs DK, are so skewed that even a TAS Ganondorf/DK may not be able to win. when you reach a certain level of perfection with Fox/Falco, beating them with the other 24 characters becomes impossible.
.

Hax, great post but I do have a question for you. If Fox/Falco are really that much better than everyone else at high levels of execution (and I actually agree with you here), then how is it that Armada has consistently beaten top Fox and Falco players, including Dr. Peepee and Mango? Is it because Armada has reached such a high level of execution that others have not yet caught up? Or is it that there are even higher levels of perfect execution to be reached with the space animals that maybe were never necessary to reach before a player of Armada's skill came around?

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Myztek]

Hax, great post but I do have a question for you. If Fox/Falco are really that much better than everyone else at high levels of execution (and I actually agree with you here), then how is it that Armada has consistently beaten top Fox and Falco players, including Dr. Peepee and Mango? Is it because Armada has reached such a high level of execution that others have not yet caught up? Or is it that there are even higher levels of perfect execution to be reached with the space animals that maybe were never necessary to reach before a player of Armada's skill came around?

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

The reason for this, and like Mango has stated before, is that Peach doesn't require the same level of execution as Fox or Falco to compete at a high level. While she may be technical in her own respects, she has a wider margin for error than both Fox and Falco due to their level of fragility.

This is speaking strictly from the viewpoint of the characters. You also have to take the player into account, but that's a totally different topic. Humans are wildly dynamic, and Armada encompasses many traits of a high-performing player.

 

[Bones0]

When it comes to putting your skills to the test at a tournament, I believe there is only one acceptable goal: perfect execution. If that is not your only acceptable level of output, there is something wrong with your competitive mindset. And if you think about it, a Sheik player might be at an advantage against a Samus player in the sense that the Sheik wouldn't have to try as hard to achieve perfect execution in the matchup. But the closer both players get to perfect execution, the more of a wash the whole advantage becomes.

I agree with the overall mindset you are encouraging, but I think it's misleading to state that as both players approach perfection that the advantage becomes a wash. With a pair of characters like Fox and Kirby, the difficulty of the matchup is only exacerbated as both players approach perfection because Fox improves at a much higher rate than Kirby. I'm sure you understand this, and I think players who are dedicated to playing Kirby should treat their character as equals with the rest, but it's also important to maintain a barrier between the mindset you have and the reality you live in. Failing to differentiatebetween the two can lead to players becoming extremely discouraged because they spend months or years practicing to win with a character than has no business winning. I think as long as people make an educated decision on which character they play before immersing themselves in a "no johns" mentality they should be fine. If someone is okay playing a character that is unlikely to ever win a major tournament, more power to you, but it's a decision that needs to be made at least partly separate from a winning mindset.

 

[HugS™]

I have a lot to respond to, but I'll start with Praxis,

I just think there are way too few "no perfect option" situations. Most of the time, when there are, it's because a bad decision was made to put you into that position. With so many ways to control your match, including zoning, conditioning, pressuring, passive pressuring, etc etc, I just can't think of many situations you can't control. Sometimes it's really difficult to figure out, even in retrospect, but someone out there usually has the answer if I really need to hear a 2nd opinion. I mean, can you give a smash analogy, outside of random stage factors, like randall?

Now, to everyone else, I clarified in my second post that I didn't mean to refer to every member of the cast. I actually sort of implied it with the idea that if a feasible option can be thought of, then your execution is to blame before your character. In other words, Kirby will have far more situations of impossibility than say, a Ganon would, and thus, a Kirby is sort of out of the scope of all this.

And Hax, I considered the idea of my opponent reaching the same level of perfection. What I concluded was that the idea of mutual perfect execution is actually impossible. You can't really have one person make perfect decisions while the other does the same. It's a paradox, you can't have perfection if the opponent is perfectly deciding how to beat you. It's a pass or fail situation, you can't both succeed at the same time. And when it boils down to that, when it comes down to one person choosing more intelligently than the other, does the matchup really matter at that point? You're just boiling it down to player decision making rather than inherent advantages in characters.

As I addressed above, I didn't mean to include every character, because certain characters legitimately have no feasible solution to certain situations. But those that do, no matter the difficulty, exist in the scope of my OP.

Megalomaniac, I see what you're saying. Also, I actually was including all that you mentioned under the blanket term of "execution" LOL. My bad, though at least you broadened the definition of the term moreso than I did in my OP.
But anyway, my argument is that player skill is the only determining factor. I'm not sure what you mean by matchup quirks though. I don't believe there is a vacuum where both skills are equal, because that is not possible when you consider the effect of proper decision making. Inherently, if your decision is right, then the opponent's became wrong as a result. Now, the question may be, if it takes less effort to reach perfection than the next guy, is that not an advantage?

It just really comes down to who makes the better decisions, and character physics can't do anything to change that. I mean, it can make some things easier or harder, but that's pretty relative. What if you have an easier time making the necessary decisions than your opponent does, does the harder vs easier thing matter then? Who cares if all the Sheik needs to do is grab when I have just as much of an easy time being patient as the Sheik does with coming in for a grab? The matchup just becomes so much less of a factor when you really consider skill as part of the equation. It should be the end-all of winning aside from random factors. And really, skill creates its own vacuum, something we have to artificially create to even theorize on matchups.

I do admit that this is extremely hard to observe in practice, but I think the existence of high placing characters outside of Fox/Falco/Sheik speaks a good deal of truth about this whole concept. I don't understand why the vacuum of character matchups is seen as more of a truth than the vacuum of player skill is. Especially when people make excuses for matchups by saying "well, player X is better than player Y, so that's just an outlier".

And Edrees, I love how you can always take my points and comprehend them well enough to deliver them more concisely than I ever could lol.

 

[Acryte]

Year of the Kirby

Hack's Kirby used to make me proud.

 

[standardtoaster]

i've been told every european top player has a good kirby

 

[Raccoon Chuck]

Waveshining, Pillaring, Missile/Lazer Walling, Ken Comboing.....eventually; one of these will be utilized, at which point you have virtually no viable way of escaping. If the opposing top tier is of the same skill level; he WILL be able to avoid your hits as well AND approach just as well as you do his. The tricks mentioned are what gives him the clear offensive advantage.

 

[choknater]

this is inspiring by hugo

though i still counter pick for three characters lol

picking counter picks is part of my 'perfect decision making'

 

[LKratos]

To me, these lists serve only as a reminder of who will have to work harder to achieve the same desired outcome. But even that, I feel, is irrelevant, and I'll explain why.

When it comes to putting your skills to the test at a tournament, I believe there is only one acceptable goal: perfect execution. If that is not your only acceptable level of output, there is something wrong with your competitive mindset. And if you think about it, a Sheik player might be at an advantage against a Samus player in the sense that the Sheik wouldn't have to try as hard to achieve perfect execution in the matchup. But the closer both players get to perfect execution, the more of a wash the whole advantage becomes.

This is a kind of flawed interpretation of how "perfect execution" works in terms of character matchups.

Let's take Fox for example. You mention how a player like Mango can still do well with Fox even when messing up sometimes. That isn't a reflection of a Fox player "not having to try as hard" to achieve perfect execution for a matchup. The reason that Fox is at the very top of the tier list is because if a Fox is ever *perfectly* executed, it is nigh unbeatable. It just takes such a ridiculously high level of skill to execute Fox perfectly that there is still variance in results.

That is the core of a "matchup". That if both characters are playing at the same skill level, this would include "perfect execution", that one character will tend to win over another.

Sure, a peach will beat a jigglypuff if the peach's execution is significantly better than the jigglypuff's. But Armada, the best Peach player in the world hands down, still goes Young Link at times against jiggles because of the real impact that matchups have in the game.

Honestly, I see the "matchups are irrelevant" argument with the same kind of scorn as I see the "tiers don't exist" argument. Tiers themselves are largely based on matchups. A bottom tier character is bottom tier because it has a bad matchup against almost every other character in the game. That's how fighting games work.

EDIT: After reading your latest post, I understand your point about player skill. What I suppose I have a problem with then is simply the modality of the statement "matchups are irrelevant". I would be completely comfortable with, and I even agree with the statement "Character matchups are not as relevant as many high level players view them, and player skill determines outcomes much more dependently".

 

[KirbyKaze]

Matchups and the dominant strategies that have emerged for the characters participating in it tend to evolve and grow at a much rate of development than most players are aware. This is commonly the result of players focusing on results of players or final outcomes of matches rather than the individual interactions that comprise a match, but that's neither here nor there. As a result of this, a lot of people tend to view what the matchup "is" as a rather unchanging concept. This is basically one of the major instances that HugS's post is absolutely awesome. It is also worth noting that there are large gaps in knowledge on how to fight characters and the information is generally available on a regional basis (because Axe lives in AZ so AZ knows Pika because no kidding). This inconsistency with information flow often results in the effectiveness of gimmicks, or inherently flawed strategies, which when coupled with strong strategies the character may possess and compliment the gimmicky ones (or if it's Ganon they may just have more and more powerful gimmicks) can give the visage of a cohesive gameplan that seems competitive against the more consistent threats and gameplans of the higher tiered characters.

It's also worth noting that even if information is spread, there's still a huge gap in experience which can work for you. Let's take Luigi for an example. The typical player will not know how to mixup their anti-counterattack punishment game properly vs Luigi (for all his nuances and such) unless they have immense Luigi experience or they're someone like me/M2K/some-other-hyper-punishment-intensive player and studied it for fun. This disparity in experience in a situation that will be common throughout a match is absolutely a competitive element that generally helps the plumber rake in numbers a bit better than his "matchups" and tier placement may suggest he should be getting. However, that counterattack thing does have a drawback (one that Luigi's pilot accepts when they decide to main or continue to main the character for winning purposes) and it is that his counterattacks come at the cost of an exploitable air mobility and hang time, which limits his ability to initiate and often gets him trapped vs cruel characters like Sheik and Falcon. So in this respect the 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' of the matchup can be really dynamic, even when information is around. So take that how you will.

Oh, and one more fun thing to think about... how much skill does it actually take to overcome a bad matchup? If I'm to be honest and a bit of an elitist prick... the vast majority of people playing this game competitively never get remotely close to the level where the advantage of a winning matchup is literally insurmountable. But, having said that, I'm not gonna lie and say they don't matter entirely either. Matchups do matter at the end of the day. Your character's limitations do matter. How many of those limitations cannot be overcome is another matter entirely, but to disregard the significance that what your character can and cannot do in relation to their opponent's character (and vice versa) is not wise. And no, Hugs, I don't think that's what you were saying. But many will just read the most recent post and thread title.

 

[Divinokage]

So basically work with your strengths and weaknesses but focus on what you can actually do to your opponent.

 

[thespymachine]

To put MUs in perspective: 60-40 is still only winning 60% of the time. Not that great of a difference.
So, yeah, HugS has a point... to a certain point. (Really, though, you should add Edrees' and KirbyKaze's posts to the OP, lol)

 

[KirbyKaze]

Work on and improve what you *can* do. Don't worry so much about what you can't do - there isn't a magic DI that allows Fox a reliable escape from Marth's CG nor is there much you can do as Falco below the stage lip without a jump versus a Sheik with setup time. Those situations are always going to suck unless the situation has frail or sensitive mechanical features that make it possible. An example could be Sheik's CG on Pika. Once thought to work to 70%+ (effectively death), now known to work to 41-43% or something (bad, but not auto-death on FD which seriously matters).

 

[CloneHat]

Perfect decision making Sheik still ftilts perfect decision making Falcon.

This is the same as the "good player factor". Although you shouldn't let it the star power blow you away, knowing why they are great players will help you win the match.

 

[KirbyKaze]

How can you perfect tilt a Falcon who perfect baited you?

Perfection cannot exist for both characters on a strategic level. Execution, sure. But strategic? No. And that's what this thread is about.

 

[BSeeD]

You guys are horribly misinterpreting HugS' post as "tiers don exits"

Clearly.

Thank you Hugs, that's kinda what I always thought, but never was able to put down in words.

 

[ph00tbag]

The way I look at it, HugS's point here can be summed up as arguing that, the more excellent one's excecution becomes, the more match-up numbers play out on a logarithmic scale. Essentially, if both players are not able to be punished simply for not performing their gameplan, it comes down more to simply determining which element of the gameplan they will utilize in a situation, and attempting to prevent that. As long as neither character can universally shut down another with one option, it just comes down to correctly manipulating the weighted probabilities that an option will be used. Even if one character's option technically covers 90% of another character's options, that simply adds weight to the probability that that option will be used, and that plays into the mindgames of figuring out what your opponent is going to do, evening out the probability of that option actually winning, and the question becomes, "who is actually more likely to choose the correct option for the correct situation?" Which rests solely on player ability. As such, match-ups where there is even a resemblance of RPS tend towards 5:5 the more perfect execution the players have, and as that interplay of options approaches centralization, it approaches 10:0. Basically, the difference between a 6:4 match-up and a 5:5 match-up at higher execution levels is much smaller than the difference between a 9:1 match-up and an 8:2 match-up at the same execution level. So the argument isn't that an unwinnable match-up is perfectly winnable. On the contrary, an unwinnable match-up is even less winnable at high levels than at low ones, but match-ups where there is potential for interplay definitely grow closer to 5:5 as both players get better.

Although I think HugS overestimates where the Melee community stands in terms of execution ability. We're still at a point where match-ups play a pretty heavy role overall.

 

[SacaSuMoto]

KK and Hugs posts are good

everyone else (for the most part) is ****

 

[john!]

I want to stress this: the disadvantage barely exists if your only goal is to think and execute perfectly.
Falcon combos Samus? I only play to not get caught.
Sheik's grab destroys Samus? I only play to not get grabbed.
Did I get caught? My fault. Did I get grabbed? My fault.

And if you think the pursuit of perfection is a turn off, then you should be playing casually, not to win.

there is a difference between the desire to be perfect and the ability to be perfect.

no melee player is perfect. we all have to deal with the shortcomings of our characters because we just aren't able to "think and execute perfectly".

your title says "character matchups are irrelevant", but your post says "character matchups are somewhat less relevant as you get better with your character"

those are two very different things.

 

[j00t]

KK and Hugs posts are good

everyone else (for the most part) is ****

This a good, high quality post that brings this conversation to new levels of engagement and interaction.

 

[BTmoney]

So being half curious and half playing devil's advocate, what does it mean when my Fox or Faclo beats a Falcon player who is better than me?

stuff

That's implying that Peach does not handle spacies much better than Falcon, which is clearly wrong. At least to me. Peach vs Spacies is much better than Falcon vs Spacies.

 

[Beat!]

So being half curious and half playing devil's advocate, what does it mean when my Fox or Faclo beats a Falcon player who is better than me?

That you played better than him/her in that particular match.