2013 Community Tier List

[1MachGO]

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

I more or less addressed this in the bolded part of my last post. The terms become the denomination so meaning is maintained during comparison. Saying "counter" is basically the equivalent of saying "between 60:40 and 70:30" or whatever. This would be a lot like how "afternoon" could be referring to any point between 12 to 6. While there are contexts where meaning can change, specifying that shouldn't be a problem.

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?

Lol those two claims don't follow. Right now I am saying we shouldn't pretend to measure match ups and just compare them more conceptually. Before I was arguing that we should emphasize results and stop pretending we can fairly compare characters with tournament data with those who don't. The philosophy is very similar in that we shouldn't make up data. So are you straw manning or just have issues with reading comprehension?

 

[ItsChon]

Discussion about tier lists turns into a discussion about whether or not we should use numbers or words to quantify match ups. Can we get on topic?

 

[john!]

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 a theoretical probability between two equally skilled top-level players.

 

[the muted smasher]

Outside of axe why is pikachu rated so highly?

Or is it just like Taj where we don't know what this is but it looks oh-kay

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I more or less addressed this in the bolded part of my last post. The terms become the denomination so meaning is maintained during comparison. Saying "counter" is basically the equivalent of saying "between 60:40 and 70:30" or whatever.

This is just plain not true. "Counter" means different things to different people in different contexts. "60-40" means the same thing to everyone all the time.

Right now I am saying we shouldn't pretend to measure match ups and just compare them more conceptually. Before I was arguing that we should emphasize results and stop pretending we can fairly compare characters with tournament data with those who don't. The philosophy is very similar in that we shouldn't make up data. So are you straw manning or just have issues with reading comprehension?

I don't think you understand what a strawman is. You can't admit to making both arguments then turn around and claim they are strawmen.

Maybe I didn't say this clearly enough, but the two arguments are contradictory. According to you, characters must have tournament results before we can compare them. But the comparison must be purely conceptual. Why should we need tournament results in a purely conceptual comparison? How would we even use tournament data in a purely conceptual comparison? Tournament data cannot be simultaneously essential and irrelevant. That is a contradiction.

Discussion about tier lists turns into a discussion about whether or not we should use numbers or words to quantify match ups. Can we get on topic?

Discussing the criteria for constructing the tier list is relevant.

If we obey 1MachGO's most recent line of argument, which prohibits us from quantifying MUs, we can't make a tier list at all, because a tier list is inherently quantified (even the positions are numbered). Even if proper communication is established, lumping all possible MU advantages into 3 broad categories makes no sense when meaningful differences can easily occur within those broad categories.

 

[1MachGO]

I don't think you understand what a strawman is. You can't admit to making both arguments then turn around and claim they are strawmen.

Maybe I didn't say this clearly enough, but the two arguments are contradictory. According to you, characters must have tournament results before we can compare them. But the comparison must be purely conceptual. Why should we need tournament results in a purely conceptual comparison? How would we even use tournament data in a purely conceptual comparison? Tournament data cannot be simultaneously essential and irrelevant. That is a contradiction.

No, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Tournament results are a concrete source of information.

Hypothesizing two players of equal skill playing 100 matches to determine MU ratios is completely theoretical.

Emphasizing tournament data when forming a tier list is hardly conceptual since its in practice.

Likewise, our understand of MUs is often based off real life examples, but creating fake data to measure it is misleading and pointless.

Not all data can measured.

 

[ItsChon]

Discussing the criteria for constructing the tier list is relevant.

If we obey 1MachGO's most recent line of argument, which prohibits us from quantifying MUs, we can't make a tier list at all, because a tier list is inherently quantified (even the positions are numbered). Even if proper communication is established, lumping all possible MU advantages into 3 broad categories makes no sense when meaningful differences can easily occur within those broad categories.

From what I've seen, his argument is not that we can't quantify MU's. His argument is that using abstract numeric values that have no meaning other than what the author intends for them to have is a poor way of quantifying MU's; and that we should instead apply broader and more relative terms to MU's so that everyone can understand what we mean and so we can all be on the same page while we're discussing certain MU's.

Of course, terms like counter/soft-counter are also abstract terms, so whatever. I kinda stopped reading everything word for word once we moved away from the actual gameplay and MU's, and moved into semantics.

 

[EddyBearr]

Outside of axe why is pikachu rated so highly?

Or is it just like Taj where we don't know what this is but it looks oh-kay

I think Pikachu is a little over-rated, and I think it's reactionary due to Axe. He's clearly better than characters who don't see success, but so many top 32 and top 16 Samus and Luigi get overlooked because of a crowd favorite who happens to also be among the best players in the world.
For Mewtwo, though, I would bump him up one place (but make him be the beginning of the 7-character "bottom tier.") We can see more Mewtwo's than Taj (M2K, that guy who won the Japanese amateur bracket for BG6, I know I'm forgetting someone..)

 

[FerrishTheFish]

His argument is that using abstract numeric values that have no meaning other than what the author intends for them to have is a poor way of quantifying MU's; and that we should instead apply broader and more relative terms to MU's so that everyone can understand what we mean and so we can all be on the same page while we're discussing certain MU's.

Let me rephrase this for you so it's a little more true to what 1MachGO has actually been saying:

Unambiguous, quantitative numeric values are somehow too ambiguous and qualitative; ambiguous, qualitative words are somehow very unambiguous and quantitative.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

I think Pikachu is a little over-rated, and I think it's reactionary due to Axe. He's clearly better than characters who don't see success, but so many top 32 and top 16 Samus and Luigi get overlooked because of a crowd favorite who happens to also be among the best players in the world.

True. I think it's worth noting that Axe also has a world-class Falco, ICs, and YLink which suggests that it's more Axe's skill than Pikachu's potential.

 

[1MachGO]

Let me rephrase this for you so it's a little more true to what 1MachGO has actually been saying:

Unambiguous, quantitative numeric values are somehow too ambiguous and qualitative; ambiguous, qualitative words are somehow very unambiguous and quantitative.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Now you're making things it up. I never said words were quantitative (unless you count words potentially referring to a range like the word "afternoon" referring to a range in time; but that is basically a colloquialism. My main argument is to remove measurable quantification from MUs), nor did I say words were void of ambiguity (just much less than you or Bones0 were trying to insinuate; "counter" is a very common term in fighting game MUs).

And just because numbers are quantitative doesn't mean they lack value. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that declaring a MU as 70:30 is the fake, entirely hypothetical result of two theoretically even-skilled players playing 100 matches. Comparing numbers to numbers is easy, but the origin of the numbers is a pretentious theorycraft that offers no other advantages/additional information other than the ease of NUMERICAL comparison.

So sorry its stupid to think we should ballpark our estimation of MUs ratios with words rather than numbers. I guess formulating fake results between two fake players to compare fake data to create "accurate" MU spreads is apparently more useful. Especially when considering how successful MU charts have been in recent times.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

So sorry its stupid to think we should ballpark our estimation of MUs ratios with words rather than numbers. I guess formulating fake results between two fake players to compare fake data to create "accurate" MU spreads is apparently more useful. Especially when considering how successful MU charts have been in recent times.

This is the last time I'm going to try to explain the same, extremely obvious little fact to someone whose pride depends on him choosing to not understand it.

You say:
"Sheik counters Falcon"
"Sheik counters Pikachu"

How hard are these counters? Is one counter harder than the other?

The reader literally has to search your comment history to see if you even use qualifiers like 'hard' and 'soft,' piece together which MUs you have described as 'hard' or 'soft' to determine what you mean by those terms (which, unless they share your exact same opinion, requires them to READ YOUR MIND), and then search the thread history to establish a context for the argument.

All that work to figure out what an opinion means, and it might well be wrong.

THAT'S. ****ING. DUMB.

I say:
"Sheik-Falcon is 60-40"
"Sheik-Pikachu is 70-30"

Oh. This guy might be wrong about how these MUs go. But I know he thinks that Sheik counters Pikachu harder than she counters Falcon and that both losing characters have a chance of winning when player skill is equal---he thinks Falcon's chance isn't all that bad and Pikachu's chance is not great but could be worse.

EASY.

I have literally never met a person who does not understand what these mean aside from you, and I think even you understand but are just in too deep to back out and would rather save face than be honest.

 

[1MachGO]

This is the last time I'm going to try to explain the same, extremely obvious little fact to someone whose pride depends on him choosing to not understand it.

You say:
"Sheik counters Falcon"
"Sheik counters Pikachu"

How hard are these counters? Is one counter harder than the other?

The reader literally has to search your comment history to see if you even use qualifiers like 'hard' and 'soft,' piece together which MUs you have described as 'hard' or 'soft' to determine what you mean by those terms (which, unless they share your exact same opinion, requires them to READ YOUR MIND), and then search the thread history to establish a context for the argument.

All that work to figure out what an opinion means, and it might well be wrong.

THAT'S. ****ING. DUMB.

I say:
"Sheik-Falcon is 60-40"
"Sheik-Pikachu is 70-30"

Oh. This guy might be wrong about how these MUs go. But I know he thinks that Sheik counters Pikachu harder than she counters Falcon and that both losing characters have a chance of winning when player skill is equal---he thinks Falcon's chance isn't all that bad and Pikachu's chance is not great but could be worse.

EASY.

I have literally never met a person who does not understand what these mean aside from you, and I think even you understand but are just in too deep to back out and would rather save face than be honest.

You're method for presenting your argument is incredibly obtuse. Time and time again you have forgone the step of acknowledging legitimate counterarguments to restate an opinion that has already been presented and accounted for. Not only that, but you've taken it a step further by making it personal. No, Ferrish, pride is not a factor in this argument (at least from this end) and its pathetic to bring that up as some kind of rational point.

Our disagreement is simple, really. I merely do not believe in constructing fake data for ease of comparison. I haven't said that numbers can't be compared; I am stating that we shouldn't theorize numbers for something as complex as MUs to begin with (but again, you refuse to acknowledge this).

As for your absurd exaggerations in regards to comprehending what someone means... I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft. pole.

 

[Facading]

Gannondorf and Zelda have to be the two most overrated characters in the game for where their placement is, and Luigi and Samus have to be some of the most underrated.

Ganon has no approach and can easily be kept away with projectiles so I don't understand why he has a good matchup against samus. Is easy to gimp once offstage, and has no good matchups with anyone above him except the iceclimbers

All Zelda has is a bair. That's literally it. If she's camped she loses to everyone except kirby.

Samus is the only character not in the top 10 with no awful matchups in the game. Rangy characters like Marth sheik, and puff mess with her a bit, but she is great against space animals and I feel their is still a lot of untapped potential in her metagame. Plup is proving just how viable she can be at the highest level

I don't think we've seen enough of luigi to truly know what his potential is. Abate and Eddy Mexico have shown just how good he can be, but I think he has the least developed metagame as far as where he can go. He has a ridiculous amount of options with his grab that can't be DI'd and his slick movement gives him enough opportunities to setup for it. His biggest weakness is his combo weight and short range.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Our disagreement is simple, really. I merely do not believe in constructing fake data for ease of comparison.

Then please never share your opinions ever again, because opinions are apparently "fake data."

Ganon has no approach and can easily be kept away with projectiles so I don't understand why he has a good matchup against samus. Is easy to gimp once offstage, and has no good matchups with anyone above him except the iceclimbers

I don't really think Ganon is overrated. He is placed as high as he is because he can KO with like 3 moves if he gets a solid read on you, or at least get you offstage and force you to recover past his bair and tipman.

I also think you are either overly optimistic about Samus's projectiles or overly pessimistic about Ganon's approach options. I admit his approaches aren't that great, but Samus cannot create an impenetrable wall of projectiles. Jump on a plat or shield -> wavedash oos and you've penetrated the impenetrable wall.

All Zelda has is a bair.

She has fair, too. And I hear her down special is the best in the game.

 

[1MachGO]

Then please never share your opinions ever again, because opinions are apparently "fake data."

Totally non sequitur but nice try.

 

[Awstintacious]

All I'm saying is that Samus is better than doc and Plup's out to prove it.

Maybe if Doc had an Axe, Plup, H-Box, etc, then I'd consider it differently, but if no player can show that it can be done, I'm not buying that better play will yield better results.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Totally non sequitur but nice try.

Sure, if by "non sequitur" you actually mean "syllogism."

General Premise: Opinions are "fake data." (According to you, at least)
Specific Premise: Your opinion is an opinion, not fact.
Conclusion: Your opinion is fake data.

Come back when you have developed the mental strength required to comprehend the difference between these two statements:

"Sheik-Falcon is 60-40."

"The debate is over. I have empirically determined the answer. I found a perfect Sheik and a perfect Falcon and made them play infinite matches. I recorded the results and the Sheik won 60% of the games."

 

[Facading]

I don't really think Ganon is overrated. He is placed as high as he is because he can KO with like 3 moves if he gets a solid read on you, or at least get you offstage and force you to recover past his bair and tipman.

I also think you are either overly optimistic about Samus's projectiles or overly pessimistic about Ganon's approach options. I admit his approaches aren't that great, but Samus cannot create an impenetrable wall of projectiles. Jump on a plat or shield -> wavedash oos and you've penetrated the impenetrable wall.


She has fair, too. And I hear her down special is the best in the game.[/quote]

She has 4 frames for her down smah, and her fair is literally nothing unless you're frame perfect. If you camp her she has absolutely no options. just dont get hit by the bair. I may have been overconfident in Samus's projectiles, but I don't see why with the projectiles she has mixed in with everything else she has to space him out that she struggles against ganon. Ganon can kill in "like 3 moves" but he needs so much to go right for him. He can't create it.

 

[1MachGO]

Sure, if by "non sequitur" you actually mean "syllogism."

General Premise: Opinions are "fake data." (According to you, at least)
Specific Premise: Your opinion is an opinion, not fact.
Conclusion: Your opinion is fake data.

Come back when you have developed the mental strength required to comprehend the difference between these two statements:

"Sheik-Falcon is 60-40."

"The debate is over. I have empirically determined the answer. I found a perfect Sheik and a perfect Falcon and made them play infinite matches. I recorded the results and the Sheik won 60% of the games."

All right, chill out Ferrish, we're borderline flaming each other.

I never said opinions = fake data. All I've said is that providing the result of 100 hypothetical matches between 2 theoretically even-skilled players is fake data (which is true).

Your argument is non sequitur because you're trying to force the idea that opinions = fake data. This isn't necessarily true because an opinion can be a reaction to actual data (i.e. looking at high level matches to determine Sheik counters Falcon) without pretentiously trying to quantify it.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I never said opinions = fake data. All I've said is that providing the result of 100 hypothetical matches between 2 theoretically even-skilled players is fake data (which is true).

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. You never said opinions = fake data. You just said opinions expressed as numerical odds = fake data:

I guess formulating fake results between two fake players to compare fake data to create "accurate" MU spreads is apparently more useful.

Nobody claimed to have recorded the results of infinite matches between two perfect players. All anyone did was express their opinion using numerical odds.

What if you and I have the exact same opinion on a certain MU and used the exact same data to arrive at it. If I express this opinion using numerical odds, does this opinion we both share and the data we both used magically all transform into "fake data?"

Your argument is non sequitur because you're trying to force the idea that opinions = fake data. This isn't necessarily true because an opinion can be a reaction to actual data (i.e. looking at high level matches to determine Sheik counters Falcon) without pretentiously trying to quantify it.

Wow. If I try to quantify data, I am being pretentious? Wow. Just ... wow.

You do realize that data is not more or less fake just because it's expressed in some way other than in English, correct? Bar graphs, pie charts, and Italian are all valid ways of expressing data. Yet numerical odds magically aren't.

She has 4 frames for her down smah, and her fair is literally nothing unless you're frame perfect.

I was talking about Zelda's down special which is the only move in the game that makes you instantly jump 16 spots on the tier list. (Also, her fair comes out 3 frames slower than her bair but is otherwise identical in every way.) Not that I have a whole lot to say about her overall placement on the tier list...

I may have been overconfident in Samus's projectiles, but I don't see why with the projectiles she has mixed in with everything else she has to space him out that she struggles against ganon. Ganon can kill in "like 3 moves" but he needs so much to go right for him. He can't create it.

LOL watch Bizzarro Flame's utilt edgeguard and tell him, "You didn't make that."

But anyways, in regards to Ganon being where he is on the tier list, I wasn't speaking in the context of the Samus MU. For most characters, Ganon really just needs to land a hit that isn't DI'd properly to knock/combo them offstage.

In terms of the Samus-Ganon MU, remember that Ganon's aerials bust CC pretty early and eat projectiles for breakfast. Samus can't guarantee keeping him outside that range with just projectile spam. I'm not saying Ganon destroys her or anything, just that the MU isn't free for Samus.

 

[EddyBearr]

I think Ganon's a little bit over-rated. I'd put Luigi and Mario both above him. It's hard to separate Mario from Doc by very much based on frame data or matchups, and Luigi just sees much more success and probably has a slightly better matchup spread, with the only outlier being vs Marth.

 

[Facading]

I was talking about Zelda's down special which is the only move in the game that makes you instantly jump 16 spots on the tier list. (Also, her fair comes out 3 frames slower than her bair but is otherwise identical in every way.) Not that I have a whole lot to say about her overall placement on the tier list...

nice b8 m8

LOL watch Bizzarro Flame's utilt edgeguard and tell him, "You didn't make that."

But anyways, in regards to Ganon being where he is on the tier list, I wasn't speaking in the context of the Samus MU. For most characters, Ganon really just needs to land a hit that isn't DI'd properly to knock/combo them offstage.

In terms of the Samus-Ganon MU, remember that Ganon's aerials bust CC pretty early and eat projectiles for breakfast. Samus can't guarantee keeping him outside that range with just projectile spam. I'm not saying Ganon destroys her or anything, just that the MU isn't free for Samus.

Haha Bizzarro Flame doesnt count because everything he does is for the flashiness.

I'm not saying Ganondorf doesn't have anything that would render him useless, but I think at the higher level of play you get the more his weaknesses shine out, because of how easy he can be camped, and how easy it is to gimp him once he's off stage. Even though he has solid reach on his aerials he has a lot of landing lag and theres no way around it. I've been looking more and more at where his is on the list and who's around him (luigi, mario, pika, doc) and his better reach I can see giving him a slightly better matchup against them, and I think that's the sole reason why he's ahead of Luigi and Mario, because they all do much better against higher tier opposition.

 

[1MachGO]

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. You never said opinions = fake data. You just said opinions expressed as numerical odds = fake data:

You're trying too hard. Most of your counter-arguments revolve around attacking ideas outside of their original contexts.

I've never said that opinions expressed as numerical odds = fake data, I said that estimating the result of 100 hypothetical matches between 2 theoretically even-skilled players is fake data. There is a difference. This discussion pertains to MUs and forcing comparisons or bridging concepts outside of this context is not a legitimate argument (at least in the way you're going about it).

Nobody claimed to have recorded the results of infinite matches between two perfect players. All anyone did was express their opinion using numerical odds.

...But you did:

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.

Nice try though.

What if you and I have the exact same opinion on a certain MU and used the exact same data to arrive at it. If I express this opinion using numerical odds, does this opinion we both share and the data we both used magically all transform into "fake data?"

No.

Lets say the "data" we have in regards to formulating an opinion on Sheik/Falcon MU is from watching S2J vs. M2K at SSS. This is obviously a small amount of data to pool from, but it should convey the point.

I say: Sheik counters Falcon based on the evidence in this set. An opinion based on the information presented.

You say: Based on the evidence in this set, if two evenly skilled players played 100 matches, the outcome would be 60-40 in Sheik's favor. Additional data has to be invented to create the ratio. This is the fake data.

Wow. If I try to quantify data, I am being pretentious? Wow. Just ... wow.

You do realize that data is not more or less fake just because it's expressed in some way other than in English, correct? Bar graphs, pie charts, and Italian are all valid ways of expressing data. Yet numerical odds magically aren't.

Again, you are taking things out of context. This is specifically about MUs. Quantifying MUs is pretentious because the creator of the ratio is pretending to know more data than they actually do.

 

[Yeroc]

What? No. He's entirely within reasonable bounds to say that he believes that Sheik can win 60% of all theoretical matches against Falcon. Saying that there's an advantage based on matchup evidence and offering a quantized estimation of that advantage based on that same evidence aren't mutually exclusive. What he's saying the value proposition of such a statement is that when you step beyond just the Sheik-Falcon matchup and examine others, you have a concrete basis for comparison, even if the assertions are rooted in subjectivity and not hard, observable facts. Because you would say "Sheik counters Falcon" and "Sheik counters Pikachu" but you would have no rationale for figuring out if one of those matchups was more uneven than the other based on those statements alone. You could add the phrase "hard counters" but guess what? You've just quantized the matchup spread into a five-category spectrum with non-numerical descriptors instead of numerical ones.

 

[EddyBearr]

It's funny how all of this came about as a result of me using a system that both:
1. Allowed comparison between otherwise similar extents of advantage/disadvantage
2. Didn't "make up" data about who wins how often

 

[FerrishTheFish]

It's funny how all of this came about as a result of me using a system that both:
1. Allowed comparison between otherwise similar extents of advantage/disadvantage
2. Didn't "make up" data about who wins how often

I prefer my system to yours because yours relies heavily on comparing one MU to another, which becomes ambiguous if there isn't one MU that everyone agrees on (you suggested Sheik-Bowser, which is a pretty good baseline, but some players might not know enough about the MU). Regardless, it's still far superior to 1MachGO's disaster.

...But you did:

Nice try though.

Thanks for proving you are completely and utterly incapable of distinguishing between hypothesis (I think/predict/expect this to happen when I press the button) and results (I pressed the button when you weren't looking and here's what happened). I no longer know of any remotely-civil words that can adequately describe your mental deficiency.

What? No. He's entirely within reasonable bounds to say that he believes that Sheik can win 60% of all theoretical matches against Falcon. Saying that there's an advantage based on matchup evidence and offering a quantized estimation of that advantage based on that same evidence aren't mutually exclusive. What he's saying the value proposition of such a statement is that when you step beyond just the Sheik-Falcon matchup and examine others, you have a concrete basis for comparison, even if the assertions are rooted in subjectivity and not hard, observable facts. Because you would say "Sheik counters Falcon" and "Sheik counters Pikachu" but you would have no rationale for figuring out if one of those matchups was more uneven than the other based on those statements alone. You could add the phrase "hard counters" but guess what? You've just quantized the matchup spread into a five-category spectrum with non-numerical descriptors instead of numerical ones.

THANK YOU. In the interest of fairness, I should warn you that no matter how often you point out 1MachGO's obvious hypocrisy, literally nothing will get through to him. I'm done talking to this fool, too.

 

[the muted smasher]

I like gannon he has enough tools to mix-up and bait and barely hits the point of punishment game he needs to be viable. Honestly his punishment isn't really for sure when You think of things like grabbing someone he doesn't chain throw Or landing a safe poke where other safe pokes are things that lead to death like marth's d- tilt, sheiks tilt, falcon nair, ics what ever combos into grab just because xD



Zedla can't be camped hard enough to auto lose but by falcon and sheik. Yeah fox is fast enough to make life hell but he lacks the throw that wreaks zedla (sdi out kick is to free at times) and honestly zedla will likly shield whatever approach he finally does and things can be done even if it's in a disadvantage. Shield sdi kick is legit for sure. But she isn't hopeless as people near her level like roy or mewtwo.

Also platform camping is soft banned

 

[EddyBearr]

I prefer my system to yours because yours relies heavily on comparing one MU to another, which becomes ambiguous if there isn't one MU that everyone agrees on (you suggested Sheik-Bowser, which is a pretty good baseline, but some players might not know enough about the MU). Regardless, it's still far superior to 1MachGO's disaster.

I think I generally prefer yours too (didn't follow the huge disastrous conversation, but I assume it's "60-40" stuff).

I only opted away from numerical values in that post since I was trying to directly compare matchups to other matchups, when I might call both Sheik-Samus and Marth-Doc (+4, +5, whatever, respectively) "65-35".

Although, admittedly, I'm becoming keener on the +/- # with baselines approach as time goes on, as I dunno if Sheik's +4 on Samus is 65-35 or 85-15 at the current peak.

I like gannon he has enough tools to mix-up and bait and barely hits the point of punishment game he needs to be viable.

Zedla can't be camped hard enough to auto lose but by falcon and sheik. Yeah fox is fast enough to make life hell but he lacks the throw that wreaks zedla (sdi out kick is to free at times) and honestly zedla will likly shield whatever approach he finally does and things can be done even if it's in a disadvantage. Shield sdi kick is legit for sure. But she isn't hopeless as people near her level like roy or mewtwo.

IMO:
(Niche Tier)
... > Ganon (#14) > ....
(Low Tier)
Link > (#18) Zelda > DK
(Bottom Tier)
(#20) Mewtwo > G&W > Roy > ...

I think that while Zelda isn't numerically far from Mewtwo, there's a huge difference in viability.
For Ganondorf, I think he's viable if and only if you can very effectively read an opponent who doesn't totally abuse Ganondorf's limitations. If the opponent plays too abusive, then I consider Ganon non-viable, and if you aren't exceptional at reading, then I also consider Ganon non-viable.

 

[Comet7]

Outside of axe why is pikachu rated so highly?

Or is it just like Taj where we don't know what this is but it looks oh-kay

it's been shown by axe that he does have the tools to be viable, but it seems to me that pika requires a really high skill level to get somewhere with.

also if expression by means of numbers is "fake" then why does about every educated person on the planet know at least basic math.

 

[1MachGO]

What? No. He's entirely within reasonable bounds to say that he believes that Sheik can win 60% of all theoretical matches against Falcon. Saying that there's an advantage based on matchup evidence and offering a quantized estimation of that advantage based on that same evidence aren't mutually exclusive. What he's saying the value proposition of such a statement is that when you step beyond just the Sheik-Falcon matchup and examine others, you have a concrete basis for comparison, even if the assertions are rooted in subjectivity and not hard, observable facts. Because you would say "Sheik counters Falcon" and "Sheik counters Pikachu" but you would have no rationale for figuring out if one of those matchups was more uneven than the other based on those statements alone. You could add the phrase "hard counters" but guess what? You've just quantized the matchup spread into a five-category spectrum with non-numerical descriptors instead of numerical ones.

You're jumping in mid argument. He was insinuating that both methods utilize fake data to arrive to their conclusion, I was simply explaining how they are different.

Of course, if we're talking about the validity of using ratios, again, I believe it does a disservice to the discussion of MUs since they are so complex. Quantifying something (which typically means you are able to measure/count it) like MUs has the advantage of ease of comparison (I never denied that) but it is either invents data or pretends to know more information than it actually does (i.e. suggesting that the ratio can be counted to an exact degree).

As to whether or not labels such as even/counter/advantage is quantizing the MU continuum, I disagree. Quantification involves measuring/counting since quantitative data can only be measured/counted. The relationship two characters have between each other is inherently qualitative because it is primarily observed. As such, terms like "even" or "counter" would be qualitative statements.

Thanks for proving you are completely and utterly incapable of distinguishing between hypothesis (I think/predict/expect this to happen when I press the button) and results (I pressed the button when you weren't looking and here's what happened). I no longer know of any remotely-civil words that can adequately describe your mental deficiency.

Absolutely nothing about your claim was evident of being hypothetical but I wouldn't expect you to admit to your contradiction.

Regardless, calm down. Who gives a **** if we disagree at the end of the day?

 

[DJ _ICE]

Zedla can't be camped hard enough to auto lose but by falcon and sheik.

What about Marth? Sweet dash dance and up throw puts zelda in a hard spot

 

[FerrishTheFish]

You're jumping in mid argument. He was insinuating that both methods utilize fake data to arrive to their conclusion, I was simply explaining how they are different.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I was applying your definition of "fake data" to your opinions to emphasize your hypocrisy and hopefully convince you that your "fake data" argument is stupid.

Absolutely nothing about your claim was evident of being hypothetical but I wouldn't expect you to admit to your contradiction.

How about the word "expect?" It's right there in the quote. Expect. Not "know." Expect. As in, predict or conjecture or hypothesize.

Better yet, how about the word "if?"

Admit you were wrong. Formulating a hypothesis is not equivalent to faking an experiment. Accept that your system also quantifies MUs but cripples our means of comparing them. End this idiotic debate.

If I have to make one more post about this, I'm blocking you.

 

[EddyBearr]

I propose that every single matchup in the game be given its own name to talk about how much of a counter it is, though only dittos may repeat how much of a counter they are.

So fox vs fox, and roy vs roy are both "Identical Options Counter", whereas Sheik vs Bowser could be "Death Megatron Counter" and Marth vs Zelda could be "Class (C) Knickerbocker Counter". This way we expand upon our terminology so to be able to differentiate between how hard otherwise similar counters are.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I propose that every single matchup in the game be given its own name to talk about how much of a counter it is, though only dittos may repeat how much of a counter they are.

So fox vs fox, and roy vs roy are both "Identical Options Counter", whereas Sheik vs Bowser could be "Death Megatron Counter" and Marth vs Zelda could be "Class (C) Knickerbocker Counter". This way we expand upon our terminology so to be able to differentiate between how hard otherwise similar counters are.

But *gasp* that would be quantifying the MUs, you pretentious data-faker!

 

[the muted smasher]

Eddy bear those reads are in part what I mean by mix-ups. Sh sh fair mightve been spaced for he still have wl approach/retreat and a risky but useful 2nd jump for platforming and to pull just out of the way.

But he is legit vs marth, ics, and samus for sure and that a much more useful niche than yl at the end of the day who is very easy to cp

 

[1MachGO]

Actually, I was being sarcastic. I was applying your definition of "fake data" to your opinions to emphasize your hypocrisy and hopefully convince you that your "fake data" argument is stupid.

Which is precisely why it didn't work because my definition of "fake data" does not apply to labels.

How about the word "expect?" It's right there in the quote. Expect. Not "know." Expect. As in, predict or conjecture or hypothesize.

Better yet, how about the word "if?"

Admit you were wrong. Formulating a hypothesis is not equivalent to faking an experiment. Accept that your system also quantifies MUs but cripples our means of comparing them. End this idiotic debate.

If I have to make one more post about this, I'm blocking you.

So your argument is that since the values proposed are hypothetical that it makes them valid?

Labeling MUs is inherently hypothetical so your argument is irrelevant. The point in question here is the origin of the hypothetical data. A MU ratio is intrinsically hypothetical, yes, but it is based on a scenario which does not exist. Once you begin comparing, averaging, and debating ratios, it clearly goes beyond a simple hypothetical proposition and suggests that MUs can be explicitly measured. So yes, I still consider the "hypothetical" result of a "hypothetical scenario" to force measurement/easy comparison to be fake data.

And as explained earlier, recognizing a MU as "even" or "counter" can be qualitative. Ideas such as passive vs. assertive or good vs. evil operate on a continuum much like MUs and, in most circumstances, aren't quantified. Labeling a MU as "even", "counter", "advantage", etc. is recognizing a trait; not measuring.

Regardless, Ferrish, I honestly wouldn't mind if you blocked me. Your method of argument is abrasive, dramatic, and extremely emotional. I don't think I have encountered someone on smashboards who has taken a disagreement as personally as you have (especially in an argument that can be boiled down to philosophical differences).

So for the sake of this thread, I'll agree to disagree. Though not respectfully.

 

[Bones0]

But *gasp* that would be quantifying the MUs, you pretentious data-faker!

No, quantifying something means you are using numbers. Qualifying it is what you're doing when you use words to describe the mu. This is basic knowledge. Didn't you ever learn about qualitative and quantitative data in science class? If you really want to stick with your method, you should try saying "Sheik-Falcon is forty-sixty" so that you aren't making up fake data, just describing the mu with words (that just happen to represent numbers).

Spoiler

 

[FerrishTheFish]

snip

If I have to make one more post about this, I'm blocking you.

Blocked.

No, quantifying something means you are using numbers. Qualifying it is what you're doing when you use words to describe the mu. This is basic knowledge. Didn't you ever learn about qualitative and quantitative data in science class? If you really want to stick with your method, you should try saying "Sheik-Falcon is forty-sixty" so that you aren't making up fake data, just describing the mu with words (that just happen to represent numbers).

Spoiler

No, no, silly Bones0. From this moment on, I shall describe my opinion on the Sheik-Falcon MU as "Sheik would win half again as many matches as Falcon." After all, it's impossible to quantify a MU because you can't reduce anything as complex as a MU to something as simple as a binary data point, like who won. Let alone count how many times they won and express that with a number.

See, I have at last realized the error of my ways. If I say "Sheik-Falcon is 60-40" then I'm implying that I found a perfect Sheik and perfect Falcon, recorded them playing infinite matches, and the Sheik won 60% of them. Instead, something like "Sheik counters Falcon" only implies that I found a perfect Sheik and perfect Falcon, recorded them playing infinite matches, and the Sheik won more of---wait, that can't be right...

No, wait, I think I got it. "60-40" is hypothetical, which is bad. "Counters" must not be hypothetical, then. But hold on, since I still didn't actually find a perfect Sheik or perfect Falcon, "counters" isn't real data, either. So if "counters" is neither hypothetical nor real data...I mean, process of elimination here...does that mean it's...fake data...? No, that can't be right either...

 

[1MachGO]

Hey, if you guys have such a problem with my view on MUs, I would appreciate it if you PM'd me instead of spamming the thread with off topic posts.

 

[EddyBearr]

Eddy bear those reads are in part what I mean by mix-ups. Sh sh fair mightve been spaced for he still have wl approach/retreat and a risky but useful 2nd jump for platforming and to pull just out of the way.

But he is legit vs marth, ics, and samus for sure and that a much more useful niche than yl at the end of the day who is very easy to cp

I pretty much agree with everything. To elaborate on my opinions:

-I think Ganon is always viable if we disregard Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Captain Falcon.
-I think Ganon is viable against Fox, Falco, Sheik, and Captain Falcon as long as both of hte following are fulfilled:
--1: The Ganondorf is good at reading opponents. I don't think average reading ability would cut it, they should be reading 50-50's at like a 60-40 average, they should be good at getting in the opponents' head.
--2: The opponent does not over exploit Ganon's weakness / play extremely lame. I can't see a Ganon being viable, even with a great Ganon, if going against the most heartless of Sheiks.

For Young Link, I also have him in Niche tier, but at the very end of it (him #16 compared to Ganon #14). His niche isn't so much "for those who are good at reading," but rather, a niche of matchups. A few months back, I considered that more valuable than Ganon's more even spread and better than Yoshi's hard-to-unlock but definite potential, but now I consider both superior to YL.