It'd be stupid to put match ups into actual numbers. There are to many variables to accurately judge it that way. And anyway, if we were going to use numbers, you'd be incorrect. Falco has problems with IC's and Peach and Fox respectively.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
2013 Community Tier List
- Thread starter Fortress | Sveet
- Start date
My argument is based off the meta which includes popularity in addition to viability.
Again, if the tier list is solely based off vacuum viability, then you might as well put Sheik at number 1. She is objectively easier to use than Fox/Falco and would have the highest aggregate MU ratio in the cast due to absurd hard counter potential vs. virtually every mid/high tier.
But guess what, Sheik having a better MU ratio than Fox against Bowser/Roy etc. doesn't matter because these characters have little to no influence on the meta. Organizing tiers based on vacuum viability alone is pointless since it only serves to depict a fictional meta where every character is played equally.
Inherent viability is important, but it is ultimately secondary to the arbitrary decisions of the playerbase. Imagine if FD was the only legal stage or if, for whatever reason, 75% of the community exclusively played Ganondorf or some ****. Our understanding of the game would be completely different and the tier list would reflect that.
tl;dr: viability works in tandem with the playerbase. If character x is the most popular character in the game, then good MUs vs. that character become valuable to overall viability. So yes, if Marth's good MUs were more popular than Falco's, the tier list should reflect that.
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
Falco definitely doesn't have problems with Fox (many argue the exact opposite, most being honest say it's even) Falco-Peach has for a while been considered even and doesn't appear be shifting away from even, and IC's appears even as well, though that one's not as well developed.
I dunno where you're getting these claimed disadvantages for Falco.
Binx
Smash Master
As an Ice Climber main for several years and after watching probably more than a thousand hours of ICs videos since 2006 my opinions of ICs match ups are:
ICs vs Fox is in Fox's favor in the neutral but not by a huge amount. BUT there are times where a shine sends Nana or you at a lucky angle and then Fox kills you for free so I would say his advantage is slight but has the potential to spike and steal matches where hes losing.
ICs vs Falco is basically even, the match up is similar to fox except if he lasers at the wrong time you can just kill him because you actually can just approach into it unlike other characters. He's also really easy to edgeguard and hes much less slippery than Fox.
ICs vs Marth is in Marth's favor in the neutral game but ICs have a vastly superior punish game and its difficult for Marth to kill Nana before you can interupt him so in the end the match up becomes pretty even unless ICs get a lead in which case I feel like they immediately gain a small advantage because of how many punish options open when Marth is forced to approach.
ICs vs Falcon is close to even at all times, they both pressure and combo the **** out of eachother and its difficult for both to recover against the other.
ICs vs Peach is impossible if Peach plays it gay enough, all she has to do is use fair to take space and then keep using fair for unbeatable pressure, until ICs come up with an answer to this move the match up is going to be unwinnable ( I have seen some hard reads with dash attack work but the risk vs reward simply isnt there unless its a last option)
ICs vs Samus is weird, there is very little room for error but if you dont make tech mistakes its close to even.
ICs vs Ganon is a MU i dont have a lot of personal experience in but watching Wobbles vs top Ganons it appears that ICs have the advantage if played properly.
ICs vs Yoshi from personal experience i feel like Yoshi actually has a small advantage in this match up but watching stuff like Amsa vs Chu makes it look fairly even at high levels.
ICs vs Fox is in Fox's favor in the neutral but not by a huge amount. BUT there are times where a shine sends Nana or you at a lucky angle and then Fox kills you for free so I would say his advantage is slight but has the potential to spike and steal matches where hes losing.
ICs vs Falco is basically even, the match up is similar to fox except if he lasers at the wrong time you can just kill him because you actually can just approach into it unlike other characters. He's also really easy to edgeguard and hes much less slippery than Fox.
ICs vs Marth is in Marth's favor in the neutral game but ICs have a vastly superior punish game and its difficult for Marth to kill Nana before you can interupt him so in the end the match up becomes pretty even unless ICs get a lead in which case I feel like they immediately gain a small advantage because of how many punish options open when Marth is forced to approach.
ICs vs Falcon is close to even at all times, they both pressure and combo the **** out of eachother and its difficult for both to recover against the other.
ICs vs Peach is impossible if Peach plays it gay enough, all she has to do is use fair to take space and then keep using fair for unbeatable pressure, until ICs come up with an answer to this move the match up is going to be unwinnable ( I have seen some hard reads with dash attack work but the risk vs reward simply isnt there unless its a last option)
ICs vs Samus is weird, there is very little room for error but if you dont make tech mistakes its close to even.
ICs vs Ganon is a MU i dont have a lot of personal experience in but watching Wobbles vs top Ganons it appears that ICs have the advantage if played properly.
ICs vs Yoshi from personal experience i feel like Yoshi actually has a small advantage in this match up but watching stuff like Amsa vs Chu makes it look fairly even at high levels.
Last edited:
I do think is a bit easier for falco against mew2king like marth lol, lasers are harder to deal with for marth I think.
It maybe that fox has more almost guaranteed and easier stuff, like drillshine up smash or upthrow uair. However, I believe that getting close can be hard against a good marth, and if his punish game is on point a single mistake can be very bad for you.
Bones0
Smash Legend
He won game 1 on BF, but he also lost on DL camping pretty much the same amount. The biggest problem with the strategy is that you HAVE to have the lead. If the Peach has the lead, you are forced to approach. Frankly, even without the lead, I think Peach could just pull turnips until she gets a stitch or do any number of things to attack a Falco on the top plat, but I'm no Peach main so I really can't say. With such a new and untested strategy, I don't see why the natural assumption is "oh, this strategy is broken and Peach can't deal with it."He won the game he camped and promptly stopped using it the rest of the set. Armada talks about how effective the top plat is and how it's a strategy he has feared since he picked up peach (claiming it works on both battlefield and dreamland). Idk why westballz didn't camp the rest of the set, but I know for a fact that the strategy worked when he tried it, looked stupid good for how simple it is, and armada seemed extremely pessimistic about peach's ability to counter it. I'll give you that Falco > peach is a rash conclusion given the small amount of data but the logic is all there.
You're a decent Falco. How about you just try it vs your local peach's and see if they can counter you.
@ItsChon in regards to Falco vs peach, you obviously didn't watch the set either. Westballz only used the strategy once on dreamland and won that game. I elaborate on this above when addressing bones. As for Marths advantages vs puff/Ics, these are cancelled out by falco's more significant equivalents such as good mus vs falcon and sheik; both of whom are more popular(though I also believe Falco beats climbers pretty handily at top level and Falco/puff is evenish like marth/falcon)
For me, it seemed more reminiscent of Ken abusing counter vs. PC Chris. He took an aspect of the metagame, "Falco must keep attacking to maintain pressure on the opponent", and flipped it on its head. He made PC be super picky about his approaches, and won because PC had no idea how to play like that. Similarly, Westballz changed the mu so that Peach has to be the aggressor instead of Falco trying to attack a floating Peach that is more than happy to take any trades that come her way. It's no secret Armada is really patient and a zero to death machine. Wes just chose to play in a way that limited those aspects of the game. Armada can't be eternally patient if Wes never approaches, and he can't death touch him very easily when he's jumping around on the top plat.
Also, I have tried it vs. a local Peach when he cped DL, and I did win, but that's only evident Peach players haven't found an answer for the strategy yet (or that I was simply better than the Peach regardless). It's worth noting that you can't just assume if Wes kept camping that it would have kept working. The harder you camp, the more predictable you become. It's easy to watch Wes approach from the top plat and say he should have kept camping, but that's as narrow minded as the people who say Fox players should just run away and laser all game. It doesn't work because you eventually get read and death touched as spacies tend to do.
If Falco vs. Peach is so even, then why have nearly all Falco players decided to or at least attempted to use secondaries vs. Peach? Mango uses Fox. PP uses Marth. Zhu uses Fox. Wes has tried Falcon and Fox. If you ask Falco mains what they think their strongest matchups are, almost none will say Peach. The same holds true for Puff and ICs, though I don't think Puff is nearly as difficult as Peach or ICs. On the other end, you can ask Peach, Puff, and IC mains which characters they are least happy to see in their bracket. I doubt there are many listing Falco in their top concerns compared to other characters.
Last edited:
spy_
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2014
- Messages
- 14
Not trying to be rude, but if you don't know the utility of various simple tech skills (e.g. wavedashing, short hopping, etc) like the thread you posted, I wouldn't be giving other people advice about matchup tendencies
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
Mango:
Calling Mango a Falco player is being pretty dishonest, as he's best understood as being a Mango player. Even so, Fox is understood to have a positive matchup on peach (as well as the Falcon he sometimes goes,) so why wouldn't someone who plays both characters go Fox against Peach?
PPMD:
PP is also a dual-main, but it's more complex than that. PP goes Marth against Peach (or at least, Armada) on FD and Pokemon Stadium, but Falco on the other stages. If anything, this most likely suggests that PP just prefers the FD/PS Marth-Peach matchup to the Falco matchup, which should be entirely understandable given chaingrabs or etc. He has an answer to what would otherwise be a chain-grab and power-shield fest, so why wouldn't he use it?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GDs_3ubpDM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7K6Mcni640
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8FeSI-gCM
Westballz:
Wes does whatever he wants, but goes Falco against Armada.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXRSyU0lYA4 Falco vs MacD SSS28
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1LNtmjIFbw Fox vs MacD SSS27
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZeUcIG09TU Fox ditto vs Lucky SSS26
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGB_5LFBAE Falco vs Armada
Zhu:
Zhu will at times go Falco, but does CP fox. If he can do it, why wouldn't he? Fox has an advantage whereas Falco, in the least, does not have a definite advantage.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L41tVAjf2rU Fox & Falco
Peach:
http://smashboards.com/threads/worst-peach-match-up.349139/ Peach players tend to think it's even.
M2K finds it even
Jiggs:
About even http://smashboards.com/threads/falco-matchup-4-jigglypuff.303106/page-3
ICs:
Poster above, and the discussion on the previous page, talks about ICs-Falco, but there's not that much info. The best I can show you is Westballz-vs-Fly, or Wobbles-vs-Axe, or etc.
Falco Mains:
It's not surprising that few would say peach, puff, or ICs are their best matchup. A typically combo heavy character will have to adjust their playstyle drastically against a character that's hard to combo. Likewise, none of these characters are common, and thus a Falco main will have infinitely more practice on spacies, Marth/Sheik, or Falcon, all of which make more sense as a Falco player due to being way easier to combo and tending to be either tall or be a spacie.
Floaty Mains:
Why would any of these 3 characters, who are all well understood as having a losing matchup to the most common character in the game, claim an even matchup is their worst? What of Falcon for ICs/Peach, Peach or ICs, or Puff for Peach in terms of their "worst"? Likewise, Fox/Falco are the most well-understood matchups in the game -- basically everyone knows how to play against them, especially when you have characters like the floaties generally using the same tricks on both of them to equal success (similar hand-offs, chain-grab/uair combos, throw gimps/rest; ICs, Peach, Puff respectively).
Falco mains often have trouble with floaties because it requires a change in game-plan and because floaties are pretty rare, but that doesn't necessitate an unfavorable matchup. Just because a lot of Falcos are inexperienced in, don't feel advantageous in, or even dislike, the matchup doesn't mean the matchup is in the other characters' favor. High level play will show the characters going back-and-forth, more akin to an even matchup than one where another side is apparently disadvantaged.
Bones0
Smash Legend
Maybe you weren't around when it was the case, but Mango used to play Falco almost exclusively.
PP used all Marth for 2 full sets vs. Armada at Apex, even on DL.
Wes went Falcon vs. Armada at Evo.
For the Zhu video you linked, @0:50 Waffles even says Zhu always goes Fox vs. Peach... And yeah, Fox does better vs. Peach. Why would Zhu use a secondary that is worse vs. Peach than Falco?
I'm not surprised people consider Peach-Falco even because people are scared to death to admit Falco might not beat everyone below him. That's sort of how this whole discussion got started. Someone listed multiple disadvantageous mus for Falco (none of which are very controversial), yet somehow he still gets placed 2nd behind Fox out of sheer tradition. Everything we see and hear indicates Falco struggles vs. Peach: Falco players frequently resort to secondaries. Falco players talk about the mu being one of the hardest. Peach players tend to not consider Falco a major threat. And though I don't have any concrete stats to back this up, I'm sure if we had a head to head comparison of Falco and Peach players, Peach players win more often than not against people of equal skill levels.
I just don't buy it that Falco players are constantly switching off their main for a select few mus that are actually all even. Most players will tell you their secondary was developed specifically for certain mus, and it seems strange that out of all the Falco mains using secondaries vs. Peach, I've literally never heard of a Peach main using a secondary for the Falco mu.
First off, I would like to point out that I made a mistake earlier. I incorrectly remembered the DL game as the one on BF. My bad.
With that said, he did NOT camp the same amount on DL as he did game 1 on battlefield. He had the lead on DL but then started coming down for some reason to play aggressive. Instead of camping and letting mistakes present themselves, he opted to go for ledge pressure and multi shines to force them out. He eventually made a mistake, got edge guarded, and then gave the rest of the game to Armada. He simply didn't use the strategy as effectively or as patiently as he did game 1.
Also, I don't see how turnips are a viable counter. Falco can easily shield or shine any of them on reaction. Physically getting to the platform is also an endeavor because her double jump is slow so any approach can be avoided or reduced to a few options.
My conclusion stems from the fact that Westballz is worse than Armada, yet took a convincing game from him with a relatively simple strategy. This, combined with Armada's take on the incident and general pessimism in regards to how effective it is, seems to validate the strategy enough to legitimately consider the MU to now be in Falco's favor.
I mean, we've seen PPMD turn a nair into a kill vs. Armada. If a falco of his caliber used this strategy, I don't see a peach of equivalent skill (Armada in this case) having as good of a shot at taking the set as he would otherwise. And seriously, do you?
If anything, it seems more reminiscent of that Peach camping out the Ganon on DL64. One character abusing the limitations in vertical mobility against another.
And I think thats an aspect that you're missing here. This isn't some ubiquitous strategy we're talking. This is a single MU where one character is exploiting the limitations of another. Fox running around and lasering isn't comparable because there is only so many places he can go and only so many ways he can avoid the majority of the cast. Peach LITERALLY has problems with getting to the top plat quickly whereas vertical mobility is Falco's forte.
Citing reads and predictability as counters isn't a solid argument either because, again, we are talking about character limitations. If Falco has a percent lead on the top plat and Peach is waiting on the bottom, the ambiguity of the neutral game has all but been removed from play. Peach HAS to approach or attack with turnips and all Falco has to do is defend himself or punish Peach's slow attempts to remove him from his perch.
Oh please. There is zero evidence to suggest the MU is worse than even. Literally all of your examples have counter examples. PP handily beat Armada with Falco at evo 2013 and he only switched at SKTAR after he lost. IIRC he stated in his interview that it was because Falco can be difficult to play at that level (not that he doesn't have faith in the MU, which, he of people shouldnt lack). The Wes example feels moot because why didn't he switch at BH4 if he was willing to switch all the other times?
I will give you that the MU is better for several other characters than it is for Falco, but that doesn't mean its worse than even. A lot of Falcos are probably just not used to adversity in the punish game or having to rely more heavily on their neutral (think of all the Marths who grind anti-spacey stuff and then struggle vs. floaties).
Last edited:
john!
Smash Hero
...because falco is a better character?
just because peach has many more worse matchups than falco does (compared to peach vs. falco) doesn't mean that it's in her advantage.
you might as well ask why young link players don't have secondaries for jigglypuff even though the matchup is even.
Last edited:
It's not that I don't know the utility of such techniques at the highest level of play, I'm just trying to understand how to use them myself. Just because you can't do some of the higher tech's required to be a high level competitor, doesn't mean you can't analyze certain things about the game just from watching. Do you really think every single one of the game commentators can do all the stuff that the pros do perfectly? Tech Skill =/= In game knowledge. And where did I give anyone advice? It's a thread meant to discuss match ups and tier lists. Is that not what I'm doing?
Falco's primary advantage over Fox is his lasers. This is why the match up is stage dependent. If Falco doesn't have room to maneuver and create decent punishes from his lasers, he's at a small disadvantage. It's not really a losing match up for Falco so my apologies if that's what I stated earlier, it just depends on the stage.
Last edited:
knightpraetor
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,321
personally i think if both players are playing on point, peach vs falco is even. But does that make the matchup even? I used to ask the same thing about marth vs sheik. If the matchup is even if we both play at peak level, but my peak level requires me to react better, zone better, and perform more difficult combos/reaction to DI and space and time my aerials better in order to win neutral, then is the matchup even just because at perfect play it's even? one side of a matchup can be harder even if the matchup is even.
on a side note, armada vs falco on bf is a horrible example of peach vs falco. I was curious about the options available to peach, and im' pretty sure armada had no idea what he was doing. He repeatedly attempted to just attack directly into the top platform instead of using the side platforms to reach the top. he would toss a turnip up, then try to get to the top platform and hit the falco as he's being forced to land. The timing window to catch his landing is way too tiny, as even my small 30min of testing indicated. So the very fact that armada sacrificed an entire stock to a strategy that has no chance of working is a strong indication that he just hasn't practiced dealing with top platform camping. When he later adjusted and tried to move in from the side platforms he was way too direct in his approach in my opinion, which got him wrecked. However, i don't think one match indicates that top platform camping is broken, especially on bf. Dreamland may be another story in that I think that even if peach gets the top platform chasing down falco will be difficult, but on bf, once you acquire the top platform you definitely have lots of options to catch the falco.
on a side note, armada vs falco on bf is a horrible example of peach vs falco. I was curious about the options available to peach, and im' pretty sure armada had no idea what he was doing. He repeatedly attempted to just attack directly into the top platform instead of using the side platforms to reach the top. he would toss a turnip up, then try to get to the top platform and hit the falco as he's being forced to land. The timing window to catch his landing is way too tiny, as even my small 30min of testing indicated. So the very fact that armada sacrificed an entire stock to a strategy that has no chance of working is a strong indication that he just hasn't practiced dealing with top platform camping. When he later adjusted and tried to move in from the side platforms he was way too direct in his approach in my opinion, which got him wrecked. However, i don't think one match indicates that top platform camping is broken, especially on bf. Dreamland may be another story in that I think that even if peach gets the top platform chasing down falco will be difficult, but on bf, once you acquire the top platform you definitely have lots of options to catch the falco.
I doubt he had practice against it, but its not like he wasn't unfamiliar with the tactic's potential as evident by his interview at the end of the tournament. Again, I think people are just missing the fact that Peach has literal limitations when it comes to her vertical mobility and nothing is going to change that. I'm sure Rock Crock could have optimized his counterplay more against Pink Shinobi when he camped him out on KJ64, but it would never fully eliminate such an obvious disadvantage.
the muted smasher
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 409
Thing about rock crock vs pink I think mightve changed the out come is gannon ledge jump is like the height of nearly his two jumps.
But yeah peach can't do anything really because as soon as she could up-b falco jumps and peach just has to wait.
I once had a puff main try to time me out on dl64 as ics. He'd stand on the top platform either jump to a side one if I did or when I full jumped he'd jump twice away and float as needed.
Clearly not as broken but it still stalled for 3 minutes till I could take another stock to be even again.
But yeah peach can't do anything really because as soon as she could up-b falco jumps and peach just has to wait.
I once had a puff main try to time me out on dl64 as ics. He'd stand on the top platform either jump to a side one if I did or when I full jumped he'd jump twice away and float as needed.
Clearly not as broken but it still stalled for 3 minutes till I could take another stock to be even again.
Awstintacious
Smash Apprentice
Can we update this to replace Doc with Samus... Samus has such better MUs and higher level of possible play while doc relies on opponents' mistakes and gets rekt in neutral vs most of the high tiers.
Sir Bubbles
Smash Journeyman
True.
I was always debating who was better, but I just think Samus at this point is better than Doc. She has so much more tools and in general can do more, including what you said.
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
Now we just need to move Luigi up.. 3 places.
T0RN
I'm Torn
FOX is king
Care to explain which MUs you are talking about?
I don't see Samus outperforming Doc vs. Fox, Falcon, or Peach and certainly not against Sheik or Puff.
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
IMO on Samus vs Doc against S-tier:
Fox: Samus > Doc
Falco: Samus > Doc
Sheik: Samus < Doc
Marth: Samus > Doc
Puff: Samus < Doc
Peach: Samus < Doc
Falcon: Samus = Doc
ICs: Samus > Doc
Overall, this would give Samus an advantage in spread to begin with, and a larger advantage due to better matchups on higher tiers or more popular characters. I do think Samus goes even with Fox, while I think Doc has a modest disadvantage against Fox. I also think Samus' comparative disadvantage against Sheik is lesser to Doc's comparative disadvantage against Marth.
Fox: Samus > Doc
Falco: Samus > Doc
Sheik: Samus < Doc
Marth: Samus > Doc
Puff: Samus < Doc
Peach: Samus < Doc
Falcon: Samus = Doc
ICs: Samus > Doc
Overall, this would give Samus an advantage in spread to begin with, and a larger advantage due to better matchups on higher tiers or more popular characters. I do think Samus goes even with Fox, while I think Doc has a modest disadvantage against Fox. I also think Samus' comparative disadvantage against Sheik is lesser to Doc's comparative disadvantage against Marth.
@
EddyBearr
I disagree with some of your assessments.
For starters, the presentation you chose isn't indicative as to the extent of losses/wins.
Going off the information you presented, I imagine you believe their MUs spreads would look like this (to reiterate, these MUs are not my personal belief, I am just speculating as to your opinion):
Samus:
Fox: Even
Falco: Soft Counter (Samus's Favor)
Sheik: Hard Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Counter (Puff's Favor)
Peach: Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Hard Counter (Samus's Favor)
Doc:
Fox: Soft Counter (Fox's Favor)
Falco: Soft Counter (Falco's Favor)
Sheik: Soft Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Hard Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Even
Peach: Soft Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Counters (Doc's Favor)
If this is the case, Doc's less polarized MUs would appear more desirable. Even if Samus does better vs. the three most popular characters in the game (which is debatable), there is no denying that her comparative superiority is marginal. On top of that, Sheik and Peach aren't far behind in terms of popularity and most likely overtake Marth if their communities were combined. As a result, her losses against Sheik/Peach are more significant than her marginal superiority vs. Marth.
Another way of looking at it is like this: There is a decent chance that Samus will have it marginally easier than Doc, but there is just as good of a chance she'll have it noticeably harder.
Of course, this is going by your logic. I personally believe that Doc does better than Samus vs. Fox and Falcon as well. He has a better punish game vs. both of these characters thanks to his CGs, tech chases, guaranteed high % fair, gimps, and polarizing stages such as FD (a stage which greatly works against Samus in the Fox MU). Doc is also generally harder for these characters to exploit. Fox won't be able to shark him in the air or kill him vertically as easily and Falcon, despite his superior range, won't be able to open Doc up as quickly (thanks to his smaller size).
>Hard Counters
Perhaps even more important is debating who has the more significant hard counter: Sheik > Samus or Marth > Doc. While you stated that Samus's comparative loss is lesser, this is simply not true.
To begin with, Doc does better against Samus's hard counter than she does vs his. Doc has a guaranteed 60+% chain grab against Sheik (which later includes countless follow ups and even a guaranteed fair kill at ~100%), legit gimps, and better neutral game options (like actual air mobility/cross ups and a jab that can lead to something better than ftilt). In contrast, Samus is totally outranged and outmaneuvered by Marth (advantages which she typically enjoys), has zero answers to a correctly applied Marth dtilt, and has zero advantages in the punish game unless you count attrition (which is another way of saying the Marth has to be worse than the Samus in just about every facet of their gameplay).
I bring up their respective counters first because it further demonstrates the extent to which they become outclassed in their actual hard counters. Much like Samus/Marth, Doc vs. Marth is incredibly ones sided in terms of range and mobility. However, Doc actually has a decent punish game vs. Marth. He has throw follow ups, can set up edge guards with space creating moves like dsmash, and has potentially good gimps. Samus, on the other hand, enjoys just as little advantages as she had vs. Marth as she did vs. Sheik, but with even more polarization in regards to the punish/neutral game (I believe it was at BH4 where Mango said that no Sheik should lose to Samus at high level)
EddyBearr
I disagree with some of your assessments.
For starters, the presentation you chose isn't indicative as to the extent of losses/wins.
Going off the information you presented, I imagine you believe their MUs spreads would look like this (to reiterate, these MUs are not my personal belief, I am just speculating as to your opinion):
Samus:
Fox: Even
Falco: Soft Counter (Samus's Favor)
Sheik: Hard Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Counter (Puff's Favor)
Peach: Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Hard Counter (Samus's Favor)
Doc:
Fox: Soft Counter (Fox's Favor)
Falco: Soft Counter (Falco's Favor)
Sheik: Soft Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Hard Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Even
Peach: Soft Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Counters (Doc's Favor)
If this is the case, Doc's less polarized MUs would appear more desirable. Even if Samus does better vs. the three most popular characters in the game (which is debatable), there is no denying that her comparative superiority is marginal. On top of that, Sheik and Peach aren't far behind in terms of popularity and most likely overtake Marth if their communities were combined. As a result, her losses against Sheik/Peach are more significant than her marginal superiority vs. Marth.
Another way of looking at it is like this: There is a decent chance that Samus will have it marginally easier than Doc, but there is just as good of a chance she'll have it noticeably harder.
Of course, this is going by your logic. I personally believe that Doc does better than Samus vs. Fox and Falcon as well. He has a better punish game vs. both of these characters thanks to his CGs, tech chases, guaranteed high % fair, gimps, and polarizing stages such as FD (a stage which greatly works against Samus in the Fox MU). Doc is also generally harder for these characters to exploit. Fox won't be able to shark him in the air or kill him vertically as easily and Falcon, despite his superior range, won't be able to open Doc up as quickly (thanks to his smaller size).
>Hard Counters
Perhaps even more important is debating who has the more significant hard counter: Sheik > Samus or Marth > Doc. While you stated that Samus's comparative loss is lesser, this is simply not true.
To begin with, Doc does better against Samus's hard counter than she does vs his. Doc has a guaranteed 60+% chain grab against Sheik (which later includes countless follow ups and even a guaranteed fair kill at ~100%), legit gimps, and better neutral game options (like actual air mobility/cross ups and a jab that can lead to something better than ftilt). In contrast, Samus is totally outranged and outmaneuvered by Marth (advantages which she typically enjoys), has zero answers to a correctly applied Marth dtilt, and has zero advantages in the punish game unless you count attrition (which is another way of saying the Marth has to be worse than the Samus in just about every facet of their gameplay).
I bring up their respective counters first because it further demonstrates the extent to which they become outclassed in their actual hard counters. Much like Samus/Marth, Doc vs. Marth is incredibly ones sided in terms of range and mobility. However, Doc actually has a decent punish game vs. Marth. He has throw follow ups, can set up edge guards with space creating moves like dsmash, and has potentially good gimps. Samus, on the other hand, enjoys just as little advantages as she had vs. Marth as she did vs. Sheik, but with even more polarization in regards to the punish/neutral game (I believe it was at BH4 where Mango said that no Sheik should lose to Samus at high level)
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
Let me replace your soft/normal/hard counter with a +-1/2/3/4/5/6 system, (Sheik vs Bowser would be like +20 for Sheik)@
I disagree with some of your assessments.
For starters, the presentation you chose isn't indicative as to the extent of losses/wins.
Going off the information you presented, I imagine you believe their MUs spreads would look like this (to reiterate, these MUs are not my personal belief, I am just speculating as to your opinion):
Samus:
Fox: Even
Falco: Soft Counter (Samus's Favor)
Sheik: Hard Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Counter (Puff's Favor)
Peach: Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Hard Counter (Samus's Favor)
Doc:
Fox: Soft Counter (Fox's Favor)
Falco: Soft Counter (Falco's Favor)
Sheik: Soft Counter (Sheik's Favor)
Marth: Hard Counter (Marth's Favor)
Puff: Even
Peach: Soft Counter (Peach's Favor)
Falcon: Counter (Falcon's Favor)
ICs: Counters (Doc's Favor)
If this is the case, Doc's less polarized MUs would appear more desirable. Even if Samus does better vs. the three most popular characters in the game (which is debatable), there is no denying that her comparative superiority is marginal. On top of that, Sheik and Peach aren't far behind in terms of popularity and most likely overtake Marth if their communities were combined. As a result, her losses against Sheik/Peach are more significant than her marginal superiority vs. Marth.
Another way of looking at it is like this: There is a decent chance that Samus will have it marginally easier than Doc, but there is just as good of a chance she'll have it noticeably harder.
Of course, this is going by your logic. I personally believe that Doc does better than Samus vs. Fox and Falcon as well. He has a better punish game vs. both of these characters thanks to his CGs, tech chases, guaranteed high % fair, gimps, and polarizing stages such as FD (a stage which greatly works against Samus in the Fox MU). Doc is also generally harder for these characters to exploit. Fox won't be able to shark him in the air or kill him vertically as easily and Falcon, despite his superior range, won't be able to open Doc up as quickly (thanks to his smaller size).
>Hard Counters
Perhaps even more important is debating who has the more significant hard counter: Sheik > Samus or Marth > Doc. While you stated that Samus's comparative loss is lesser, this is simply not true.
To begin with, Doc does better against Samus's hard counter than she does vs his. Doc has a guaranteed 60+% chain grab against Sheik (which later includes countless follow ups and even a guaranteed fair kill at ~100%), legit gimps, and better neutral game options (like actual air mobility/cross ups and a jab that can lead to something better than ftilt). In contrast, Samus is totally outranged and outmaneuvered by Marth (advantages which she typically enjoys), has zero answers to a correctly applied Marth dtilt, and has zero advantages in the punish game unless you count attrition (which is another way of saying the Marth has to be worse than the Samus in just about every facet of their gameplay).
I bring up their respective counters first because it further demonstrates the extent to which they become outclassed in their actual hard counters. Much like Samus/Marth, Doc vs. Marth is incredibly ones sided in terms of range and mobility. However, Doc actually has a decent punish game vs. Marth. He has throw follow ups, can set up edge guards with space creating moves like dsmash, and has potentially good gimps. Samus, on the other hand, enjoys just as little advantages as she had vs. Marth as she did vs. Sheik, but with even more polarization in regards to the punish/neutral game (I believe it was at BH4 where Mango said that no Sheik should lose to Samus at high level)
Samus:
Fox: ~0
Falco: -1
Sheik: -5
Marth: -3
Puff: -4
Peach: -3
Falcon: -3
ICs: +4
Total: -14
Doc:
Fox: -2
Falco: -2
Sheik: -4
Marth: -6
Puff: ~0
Peach: -1
Falcon: -3
ICs: -1
Total: -19
I'm not too interest in having a long discussion, but these numbers should summarize how I think about these matchups. I'd be open to call Doc a -2 against Falcon. I think matchups stop being very competitive at +/-5, though, so in that sense, Doc/Samus each only have 1 truly horrendous matchup against the S tiers.
[collapse=some top tiers for reference]Marth:
Fox: ~0
Falco: ~0
Sheik: -1
Puff: ~0
Peach: +1
Falcon: ~0
ICs: +1
Peach:
Fox: -2
Falco: ~0
Sheik: -1
Marth: -1
Puff: -2
ICs: +6
Falcon: -1
Falcon:
Fox: -2
Falco: -3
Sheik: -2
Marth: ~0
Puff: -2
Peach: +1
ICs: +1
[/collapse]
Please don't use numbers. They only serve to complicate an already complex topic.
Understand that terms like counter/soft counter/etc. get their point across without pretentiously trying to quantify them. MUs are comprised of a multitude of factors and analysis is required to compare them. By suggesting they can be quantified, you are implying that they can be measurably compared, which isn't necessarily true at all.
Furthermore, numbers become confusing because you ultimately have to translate them back into... ya know... actually meaningful words. Your pluses and minuses might make sense to you, but the only measuring sticks you're giving me here is that Sheik/Bowser is +20 (because apparently you and I are both experts on this MU so it should be a good point of reference?) and that +/-5 is when MUs become noncompetitive...
...so essentially, in your effort to explain yourself, you are simply creating more ways for misinterpretation and subjective reasoning to arise. I'll never understand what -2 or -6 will mean on your scale, and I think you are wasting your time thinking this way. Calling Fox/Samus evenish or Marth/Doc noncompetitive from the beginning would have served you better. At least I'd understand what the **** you're saying in English as opposed to your bizarre mathematical measurement of one of the most non-quantifiable aspects of a game made of 0s and 1s.
Understand that terms like counter/soft counter/etc. get their point across without pretentiously trying to quantify them. MUs are comprised of a multitude of factors and analysis is required to compare them. By suggesting they can be quantified, you are implying that they can be measurably compared, which isn't necessarily true at all.
Furthermore, numbers become confusing because you ultimately have to translate them back into... ya know... actually meaningful words. Your pluses and minuses might make sense to you, but the only measuring sticks you're giving me here is that Sheik/Bowser is +20 (because apparently you and I are both experts on this MU so it should be a good point of reference?) and that +/-5 is when MUs become noncompetitive...
...so essentially, in your effort to explain yourself, you are simply creating more ways for misinterpretation and subjective reasoning to arise. I'll never understand what -2 or -6 will mean on your scale, and I think you are wasting your time thinking this way. Calling Fox/Samus evenish or Marth/Doc noncompetitive from the beginning would have served you better. At least I'd understand what the **** you're saying in English as opposed to your bizarre mathematical measurement of one of the most non-quantifiable aspects of a game made of 0s and 1s.
Last edited:
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
I'm sorry that you can't understand it or dislike it. -3 being worse than -2 shouldn't be too hard to understand, and it should have been clear that Bowser being -20 against Sheik was hyperbolic & imprecise and designed to show that, even if Marth-Doc was a -5 as opposed to -1, that doesn't mean it's even close to what is often cited as one of the worst matchups in the game.
Soft counter is a term that only really goes in contexts which have potential for hard counter as well. A "hard counter" is a strategy/set-up that completely dominates another, such as an infantryman going against a tank. A soft counter is something that negates a strategy, but other ways can be found to still compete; a soft counter doesn't actually say anything about which will have the advantage (EX: It could be argued that keep-away Young Link soft-counters trade-centric Peach, but that Young Link could still have a losing matchup simply because Peach is a vastly superior character.) As a result of this, I don't like using misappropriated terms like "soft-counter" to a game like melee where, arguably, any character can beat any character with basically any strategy as long as the skill disparity between the player is large enough.
Last edited:
One value being lower than another is clear. Reapplying quantified logic to something abstract like MUs doesn't mean ****.
To follow up, if your -20 example is hyperbolic and imprecise, then why are you using numbers? The fact you have to explain yourself is only proving my point.
No. Your entire argument revolves around the belief that the label of "counter" can only be applied to strategy and that is merely your subjective insinuation. The only way a term can be misappropriated is if its definition doesn't suit its context. Since "to counter" more or less means "to oppose" I fail to see how it doesn't apply to MUs. Citing that any character can beat another with the right skill disparity is also moot because a MUs sole intention is to assess a scenario where skill is equal.
Also, saying that a label can't be put in place but an arbitrary numeric value can be is just plain 'ole contradictory.
mimgrim
Smash Hero
Why can't people just use big advantage/disadvantage, advantage/disadvantage, small advantage/disadvantage, and even. Its simple, effective, and gets the point across just fine. :L
Bones0
Smash Legend
Because there's still no concrete way of determining what someone else considers to be a "big advantage" vs. a "small advantage". This is why I've always tried to stick with the tried and true method of mu ratios being representations of % of games won between two equally skilled opponents. This already has a lot of ambiguity with what it means to be "equally skilled", but at least when someone says the mu is 80-20, you understand they're saying that if two gods played each other in 100 games, the second char would only be able to take 20 games.
Sir Bubbles
Smash Journeyman
But when people say Kirby vs Fox is say, 20:80, I don't understand it.
A competent Fox at a high enough level will absolutely destroy any equal skilled Kirby to the point where I don't think it's possible for Kirby to win 20 games. Maybe that's just me doe.
EddyBearr
Smash Lord
Kirby's got a bit too rock-paper-scissor of a neutral game to really have that issue. I'd argue it might be true for characters that can almost entirely be reacted to like Bowser, though (or perhaps if Bowser had 6 more frames of start-up on every move).
So you're saying that there is no concrete way of determining what someone considers to be big/small advantage (words with literal definitions btw) but we are capable of estimating the average results of 100 matches between two hypothetically skilled players...?
Unless somebody forgot how to use the English language, saying something like Fox has a slight advantage over Sheik, or that Peach hard counters ICs should convey their ideas pretty well. You could argue that saying Fox/Sheik is 45:55 or that Peach/ICs is 80:20 conveys the same ideas, but the numbers don't actually exist and pretending that MUs can be measured for the sake of comparison does a disservice to the actual intricacies of the MU. Yeah, the connotations of words isn't necessarily as concrete, but that's the intention. MUs ultimately require specific analysis/explanation to be fully understood. Thus, labels such as counter/advantage are the best shorthand.
FerrishTheFish
Smash Ace
We've discussed this before. It is literally impossible for you to argue based on current knowledge that Fox has a worse MU against Kirby than against Puff, and most people agree that Fox-Puff is pretty heavily in Fox's favor.
You are simply ignoring the possibility that our knowledge of MUs is precise enough that 5 broad categories (big disadvantage, small disadvantage, even, small advantage, big advantage) isn't enough to convey what we actually know about the MU in question.
Big/small disadvantage is still subjective and relative, btw. I consider 60-40 to be a big advantage because it's about the biggest disparity you'll find among the top tiers, but one could just as easily argue that 60-40 is a small advantage or roughly even.
Last edited:
Bones0
Smash Legend
I agree, and I'd consider the matchup ~95:5. Either the people you're referring to aren't using the same win % logic or they are just ******** and actually think a pro Kirby can compete with a pro Fox to that extent. Either way, at least it's clear you two are in disagreement with regards to your opinions on the mu. If you're using Mach's system, you would both be saying the mu is a "big disadvantage" despite a clear disparity in your opinions on how the mu would actually play out.
Idk how many times I'm gonna have to explain this. I fully admitted that there is some ambiguity in terms of the theoretical players, but whatever differences two players have in said players is really just a reflection of their beliefs about the game. Someone who thinks Pikachu is top tier obviously has different theoretical players in mind when he is asked to consider how a mu is. So while people can't accurately emulate their mental Theory Bros., at least it is CLEAR what they mean when they say 80:20 vs. 60:40. The advantages can be translated as 60% and 20% respectively. If you want to label different ranges of win%s with "big/small//no advantage", that's fine, but those terms are entirely subjective unless you are basing them on something. Like Ferrish said, what's to stop someone who thinks Fox wins 55:45 vs. Puff from considering that to be a big disadvantage? Big is relative so if someone considers every mu in the game even, they will say it's a big advantage even though their Theory Bros. of of the mu is the same result as someone saying the mu is a small advantage.
Sir Bubbles
Smash Journeyman
I wouldn't necessarily call them "********" because that's just impolite, but it's a pretty big reason why I think numbers are irrelevant. There are too many opposing opinions when it comes to numbers, making an complicated matter far more complicated. Even if there's a disparity in our opinions on the Fox vs Kirby MU, there is no doubt that anybody, including new competitive players with a very basic understanding of the game know that Fox vs Kirby is outright unwinnable. So IMO saying that it's a big disadvantage gets it pretty clear.
Serious question, is Puff vs Doc really 50-50? I only played against a Puff once (It was in doubles, we didn't do bad but we lost) Puff was kind of easy to space, but I feel like Doc has a hard time in general approaching Puff, even with Puff's range. Not only that, Doc's punishes are kind of hard to get when Puff's answer to everything Doc has is bair and Puff's overall mobility. Maybe I'm missing something blatantly obvious, but I don't think Doc vs Puff is equal, or even all that good compared to the rest of Doc's MU's, which aren't that good to begin with.
Last edited:
FerrishTheFish
Smash Ace
You're working backwards here. You're trying to get people to agree, not by actually convincing them that one or the other is right, but by broadly defining a few words (e.g., 'big disadvantage') so that they apply to both disparate opinions and then banning all the other words. You aren't solving the disagreement; you're just hiding it behind meaningless umbrella terms.
Having different opinions is not inherently bad. Being unable to articulate or understand different opinions is.
The point is that, for example, 60-40 is a specific set of odds. It might be wrong. Some might disagree about whether it's small or big. But everyone understands it.
Last edited:
Sir Bubbles
Smash Journeyman
My apologies. I wasn't really thinking straight.
Tagxy
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,482
Specific quote intended for the general idea. The problem with using result ratios is that its not the same thing as making a statement about the mechanics of the game. You can compare mechanics to determine that a MU is advantage or disadvantaged, minus one or minus two. But once you start to incorporate results the mechanics become a vehicle for a player, and suddenly you have to consider many player level elements that can affect the result. What was their theoretical skill level? How was he feeling? Was he sandbagging because you were using a bad character? Did the "theoretical" player just break up with their GF and now theyre playing like trash? One might say that we could use an ideal scenario where everyone is playing at a peak level and at their peak skill, but such a standard isnt useful at all in results since that never happens, and in any case the intention is to mitigate player elements and create a standard for comparison, in which case its better to just cut the middle man altogether and not use result ratios as a measurement of mechanics.
Last edited:
The issue of relativity will only arise when you are using the numbers as a reference lol. I am not saying we should translate ratios, I am saying that we should ditch them all together.
Terms like counter, hard counter, and soft counter are pretty common labels in fighting games and I disagree with the argument that they could essentially mean anything. Players who use these terms generally understand that counter/advantage and their respective adjectives are equal opposites along a continuum (with "even" being in the middle). Saying something like Peach hard counters Ice Climbers has the colloquial implication that it is far from even and greatly in Peach's favor.
In other words, the terms are the denominations on the scale; not interpretations of it because MUs can't be quantified. Like I've said, MUs ultimately deserve analysis. So whats the advantage of comparing 80:20 to 60:40 mathematically if you're just gonna have to explain yourself anyway? You could have conveyed the same ideas by saying hard counter and counter respectively (one is further along the continuum than the other) and more precise comparison can still be done with a few more words or minor elaboration (i.e.: Peach hard counters ICs and Falco hard counters DK, but ICs still have it worse than DK, etc.). Is it longer winded? Yes. But at least it isn't pretending to measure an abstract concept or know more information than it actually does.
mimgrim
Smash Hero
Fine in theory. Falls short in practice. The ratio of a coin flip is 50:50 which in theory means 50 flips should end up as heads and the other 50 as tails. But in practice it can go anyway. When you use ratios to mean percentage base of wins what happens when that second character ends up winning 21 games out of 100 instead of 20? Do you change the ratio? Then during these matches what were the mind-sets of the player? Their level? Then when it gets to this ratios become even more ambiguous because there are more ratios with many different meanings left open to interpretation. Whereas what I said is fewer with less chance of being interpreted and isn't as arbitrary.
It's only clear to those more experienced. But the thing with ratios is that they are completely arbitrary though. What makes a MU 55:45 for 50:40? At least the terms "small" and "big" give off a general idea of what the match-up should be like. And ratios are just as subjective, if not more subjective, as "small" "big" once you realize the percentage crap falls short in practice.
FerrishTheFish
Smash Ace
No. Consider the Sheik-Falcon MU. The following are all equally valid statements:
Sheik hard-counters Falcon (relative to MUs in the top tiers, or perhaps relative to Falcon's MUs).
Sheik soft-counters Falcon (relative to all MUs in the game).
Sheik is roughly even with Falcon (relative to Sheik's MUs).
With your 'system' it is impossible to distinguish between different opinions and different contexts. To articulate an opinion, one must now explain both the opinion itself and the context in which it occurs.
Compare that to:
Sheik-Falcon is 60-40 (in the context of MUs in the top tiers, or in the context of Falcon's MUs).
Sheik-Falcon is 60-40 (in the context of all MUs in the game).
Sheik-Falcon is 60-40 (in the context of Sheik's MUs).
It's really funny to me how earlier you were claiming that the tier list should be based solely on results, yet now magically the mathematically-quantifiable results are too misleading to discuss MUs. Are you trolling or just a hypocrite?
Like I said, the "Sheik-Falcon is 60-40" ratio might be wrong, but what it means is plain for all to see: if two equally-skilled, high-level players played an infinite number of games, my potentially wrong opinion is that I expect the Sheik player to win 60% of those games. The validity of my opinion is up for debate, we can explore the intricacies of the MU in that case, but it's at least clear what my opinion is.
Last edited: