Official Character Competitive Impressions - Tourneys, Tiers, Theories, Tactics

[Emblem Lord]

Dude, you're lowballing hard on DDD vs DK. That matchup was *way* worse than just 7/3. With the infinite legal you might as well call it 10/0 in DDD's favor.

7/3 is stuff like vs and I can see a whole bunch of matchups in smash 4 being on a similar level.

THIS

****!!!!

Do people not know how ratios work? If your opponent cant even play the damn match its WAY worse then 7/3.

 

[Latias]

Results aren't the end all for tiering... Case in point, Brawl Dorf had better results then most of the low and bottom tiers and still got placed dead last.

I'd say that 'case in point' thing doesn't really work -lots of low tiers weren't played at all while Ganon was repped by people like Vermanubis so ofc he got better results. With high tiers though I'd say results matter more than theory, so the 'results tier list' is probably fairly accurate. There are issues with it though since some players play more than others and get more results because of that etc.

 

[Zelder]

Maybe this 7/3 discussion would be more fruitful if people would list some more 7/3 matches in Smash 4, rather than just alluding to them.

 

[S_B]

ZeRo, Nairo, etc. are playing the characters they're playing BECAUSE those characters are so damn good.

How do people not realize just how contradictory it is to say that ZSS/Sheik wouldn't be so high because of ZeRo and Nairo? Right behind ZeRo and Nairo are a ton of ZSS/Sheik mains who are also pretty damn amazing. Subtract Z or N from the tournament scene and one of the other ZSS/Sheik mains would be collecting all of these wins instead.

If someone comes out of the woodwork and pays either ZeRo or Nairo $50k to main Ganon in every tournament for the whole year and they STILL take tournaments, I'll admit it's the player and not the character...

 

[Mili]

Also, we seriously need to outline specifically what 55:45, 60:40, 65:35, 70:30 matchups even mean. Everyone has a different scale, from using what I just did to simplifying it into 6:4 or something along those lines.

How can we talk about matchups when we can't even agree on the scaling?

 

[warionumbah2]

Ito, tyrant and Salena not good enough?

No.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Maybe this 7/3 discussion would be more fruitful if people would list some more 7/3 matches in Smash 4, rather than just alluding to them.

If it helps, I think Pikachu vs Captain Falcon is 7/3+ in Pikachu's favor.

 

[TTTTTsd]

If it helps, I think Pikachu vs Captain Falcon is 7/3+ in Pikachu's favor.

I can contribute. Doc has a few of these with top tiers (actually really just a couple)

Sonic vs. Doc is IMO 7:3 (maybe worse)
Rosa vs. Doc is about that too.

I used to think ZSS vs. Doc was, I'm unsure now, it might be ALMOST at that level but not quite IMO.

 

[adom4]

Maybe this 7/3 discussion would be more fruitful if people would list some more 7/3 matches in Smash 4, rather than just alluding to them.

For Dorf i'd say the ones i'm sure are at least 7/3 are Pikachu & Sonic and MAYBE Sheik (mostly because we can actualy recover against her unlike Pikachu), MM & Greninja are close tho.

 

[Mazdamaxsti]

Firstly, can we just not say 55:45? Ratios out of 100 are insanely hard to pinpoint, and it's harder to place MUs in categories like that. The -1/-2/-3 system is so much better, and the ratios out of 10 is fine.

Speaking of 7/3, Sonic/Luigi both are 7/3 against Kirby. But I'm assuming low/bottom tier characters have a significant amount of these, and mid tiers would have less.

 

[LightLV]

You'd knock Diddy down a level because of his recovery, but keep Falcon on that level? Well, that's...hmm. Have you ever tried recovering with Falcon (or escaping disadvantage, for another matter)?

Diddy and Falcon have always had crappy recoveries and they're still better than everyone. Dont see why its an issue.

ZeRo, Nairo, etc. are playing the characters they're playing BECAUSE those characters are so damn good.

How do people not realize just how contradictory it is to say that ZSS/Sheik wouldn't be so high because of ZeRo and Nairo? Right behind ZeRo and Nairo are a ton of ZSS/Sheik mains who are also pretty damn amazing.

Thank you, god. I wish people would understand this. ZeRo and Nairo wouldn't be consistently placing so high with these craptier characters everyone harps about. And they know this. Which is why they don't play them.

Player skill is important, but the character is the middleman. Their skill would be wasted on a character who can't help realize their potential.

Those characters don't have 7-3 MUs across the board. Not even sheik does.

Who ever said they needed 7-3 matchups to dominate the roster? They just need to not have any horrifically bad ones.

Guys, you don't need to be Brawl Metaknight to be an OP character.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Also, we seriously need to outline specifically what 55:45, 60:40, 65:35, 70:30 matchups even mean. Everyone has a different scale, from using what I just did to simplifying it into 6:4 or something along those lines.

How can we talk about matchups when we can't even agree on the scaling?

The way I see it is this:

5-5: More or less even.
6-4: The losing character can win but it's an uphill battle.
7-3: The losing character will struggle to win. This is the point where you should consider using a secondary.
8-2: The losing character has to completely outplay their opponent.
9-1: My cousin can probably beat you with this character, and she keeps trying to use Dedede's uair to recover. Also she's 10.
10-0: Literally unwinnable, you may as well put down the controller and make a sandwich.

EDIT: I also do not see the point in 55-45 matchup ratios on the grounds that they imply a degree of precision I don't think we can legitimately claim to have, as well as being generally unnecessary for most people's needs.

EDIT 2: To elaborate a bit more, there are effectively 11 possible ratios if we go by 5-point precision. (Assuming that 55-45 and 45-55 and so forth are basically the same ratio, just flipped.) With this in mind, I believe two things:

1. We can't seriously claim to be able to identify 11 discrete matchup ratios and uniquely characterize them in terms of what they all mean. (I struggled with my 8-2 and 9-1 descriptions, for crying out loud.)
   
2. Such a high number of possible rankings is unnecessary.

 

[David Viran]

ZeRo, Nairo, etc. are playing the characters they're playing BECAUSE those characters are so damn good.

How do people not realize just how contradictory it is to say that ZSS/Sheik wouldn't be so high because of ZeRo and Nairo? Right behind ZeRo and Nairo are a ton of ZSS/Sheik mains who are also pretty damn amazing. Subtract Z or N from the tournament scene and one of the other ZSS/Sheik mains would be collecting all of these wins instead.

If someone comes out of the woodwork and pays either ZeRo or Nairo $50k to main Ganon in every tournament for the whole year and they STILL take tournaments, I'll admit it's the player and not the character...

Nairo played zss way before she was considered a solid top tier. People didn't consider zss top 2 until nairo became godly with her.

 

[C0rvus]

I don't know about that, but I do know what I'm labbing when I get home~

The other thing I want to test for definite is how less effective Electroshock is in the air. I know Upperdash and pre-patch Electroshock used to have significantly decreased knockback in the air (for some reason), I want to see if it still makes a difference with the knockback buff and how it affects the matchup.

I don't know about less knockback, but I loooove aerial Electroshock for those crispy edge cancels.

 

[S_B]

Thank you, god. I wish people would understand this. ZeRo and Nairo wouldn't be consistently placing so high with these craptier characters everyone harps about. And they know this. Which is why they don't play them.

Player skill is important, but the character is the middleman. Their skill would be wasted on a character who can't help realize their potential.

Seriously.

It's like people think that right behind ZeRo and Nairo are nothing but Ganon, JP, and Zelda players or something...

Who ever said they needed 7-3 matchups to dominate the roster? They just need to not have any horrifically bad ones.

Guys, you don't need to be Brawl Metaknight to be an OP character.

At this point, I get the feeling that anyone tossing out arguments like the one you mentioned mains these characters and doesn't want to see them get nerfed.

Nairo played zss way before she was considered a solid top tier. People didn't consider zss top 2 until nairo became godly with her.

Probably because she was pretty damn good in Brawl.

And if she turned out to be garbage in SSB4, do you actually think he'd still be playing her?

 

[Baby_Sneak]

nvm this my post wasn't good

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The way I see it is this:

5-5: More or less even.
6-4: The losing character can win but it's an uphill battle.
7-3: The losing character will struggle to win. This is the point where you should consider using a secondary.
8-2: The losing character has to completely outplay their opponent.
9-1: My cousin can probably beat you with this character, and she keeps trying to use Dedede's uair to recover. Also she's 10.
10-0: Literally unwinnable, you may as well put down the controller and make a sandwich.

This is mostly agreeable. The only [minor] issue I have is that there are enough shades between these definitions to justify the existence of X5/X5 matchups. Stuff like Ike vs Sheik could easily be exactly between what you define as 6/4 and 7/3 for all we know.

 

[S_B]

Know what'd be interesting?

If the SSB4 community put together a $20k+ prize pot for a tournament, then banned every character above middle tier.

I'd be curious to see who shows up to it and which characters get played...

 

[LightLV]

EDIT: I also do not see the point in 55-45 matchup ratios on the grounds that they imply a degree of precision I don't think we can legitimately claim to have, as well as being generally unnecessary for most people's needs.

Yeah this is becoming a circus, with people talking about 55:45 and 49.8:50.2 and what have you. Just call it 5-5. Or 6-4. Or whatever.

The guide here should be that the only 100% true objective 5-5 matchup is a mirror match.

?

I...dont get the context of this post

 

[David Viran]

Probably because she was pretty damn good in Brawl.

And if she turned out to be garbage in SSB4, do you actually think he'd still be playing her?

Well he has a tendency to just play characters he likes playing. He mained Zelda at first and then Robin and after the pits. He still likes to play them but naturally he's going to pick his best character at big tournaments which is mostly his zss now.

When he first played her, it was at smash4ever 9 and nakat and him were just screwing around with a different character from there mains. So it isn't a long shot to say he played her initially because he liked playing her.

 

[Jams.]

Not entirely convinced for the first one, I mean, Luma is a tough one for Falcon, he can get walled out, and both lack true disjoint ("both" as in "Falcon and Luma", Rosalina doesn't lack).

But the second one is pretty much the description of the Pika-Mario matchup plus the random Luma kills.

I think Falcon is too fast to be walled out reliably. Rosalina can't throw out hitboxes carelessly in this MU compared to a lot of her other MUs, because Falcon's going to dash grab her and punish her hard. Falcon definitely has disjoints on a few key moves like dash attack ( Lavani Bob-omb gif? =P), bair, and the rapid jab finisher (and maybe other parts of jab as well, IDK). I don't think disjoint is as important as for killing Luma having large hitboxes (this way Rosa can't protect Luma with positioning) and multi-hits (to muscle through Luma's clanking mechanism).

I don't actually understand how Luma and Rosalina's shield interact though. Does her shield protect Luma at all? I'd appreciate if one of the more informed Rosalina mains in this thread could enlighten me. =D

Mario seems to have far better frame data than Rosalina, who's pretty mediocre in CQC and relies on Luma as an aerial combo breaker. Being short, I'd imagine less of Mario's moves whiff against Pikachu compared to Rosalina as well.

The way I see it is this:

5-5: More or less even.

6-4: The losing character can win but it's an uphill battle.

7-3: The losing character will struggle to win. This is the point where you should consider using a secondary.

8-2: The losing character has to completely outplay their opponent.

9-1: My cousin can probably beat you with this character, and she keeps trying to use Dedede's uair to recover. Also she's 10.

10-0: Literally unwinnable, you may as well put down the controller and make a sandwich.

EDIT: I also do not see the point in 55-45 matchup ratios on the grounds that they imply a degree of precision I don't think we can legitimately claim to have, as well as being generally unnecessary for most people's needs.

I personally like 55-45 matchup ratios, because these are the ratios that matter in competitive play. It's important to know whether I'm at a slight advantage or disadvantage in a MU. In contrast, it doesn't really matter if a MU is 7-3/8-2 or 10-0, because I should probably switch off if I want to win. You have a valid point about the degree of precision though.

 

[LightLV]

Well he has a tendency to just play characters he likes playing. He mained Zelda at first and then Robin and after the pits. He still likes to play them but naturally he's going to pick his best character at big tournaments which is mostly his zss now.

When he first played her, it was at smash4ever 9 and nakat and him were just screwing around with a different character from there mains. So it isn't a long shot to say he played her initially because he liked playing her.

A big difference between competitive players and actual pros is that they will switch characters the moment they realize they aren't worth maining.

Although, being a skilled player, it's pretty easy to play a character for an hour or so and judge their potential. I don't think anyone had to play Zelda in smash 4 for very long before realizing she was horse****.

 

[C0rvus]

Ratios are nice at a glance, but really tell you very little meaningful information about matchups. Honestly, just being able to glance at some numbers with no context doesn't help me personally; just gives me stuff to complain about without fully understanding it.

If we want to use numbers, I don't mind 55-45 and such. The more accurate we can get the better, within reason.

 

[BSP]

Yes, and Pac-Man is in BRAWLER. Not even the gunner-brawler, which actually could make sense (maybe), but BRAWLER

Forgot to comment on this. Pac-Man is more of a brawler than anything imo. He sacrifices some of the archetype's staples like well above average frame data, mobility, grab combos, etc. for versatility instead. I think Mario's a decent comparison for this discussion (we agree at this point Mario isn't the all around character in this game, right? That's Pit/D. Pit)

Most of Pac-Man's normals are fast and his aerials combo quite well, just like Mario, but he's not as fast/safe as him overall + he lacks a grab/grab followups. On the flip side, Pac-Man has access to 8 different projectiles, a much more flexible recovery, and the wild cards that are the fire hydrant and the trampoline.

When I'm fighting Luigi as Mario, I'd love to able to access Pac-Man's Apple to headshot Luigi for fireball attempts. If I wanted a projectile similar to my own fireball, I'd use the strawberry and cherry. Vs Fox, I'd like the Orange to semi spike him out of illusion. Vs Villager and Mega Man, it'd be nice if I could get Pac-Man's Key to straight up cut through their projectiles once in a while. See where I'm going with this?

Mario would be pretty crazy with some of Pac-Man's specials, especially bonus fruit, so what's the price Pac-Man pays for them? His grab, some lackluster normals and smashes, and all of the projectiles being items, thus easy to use against him. It's obvious the devs are worried about pac-man being too good since he's got so many options available. I think they're going overboard on their fears though....

@Pacman9 went over this before, but bonus fruit by itself is pretty bad for zoning compared to real zoning projectiles like mega man's lemons and Villager's slingshots/Lloid. Yes he's got 8 options, but they're all really easy to beat if he tries to keep people out with them or constantly apply pressure (which he can't since they're charged). He's limited to one fruit at a time, and all of are easily caught/clanked with. His other projectile, launched fire hydrant, takes more than a second to even launch at someone, is telegraphed, and is liable to being turned on him while he's trying to do so. Once it is flying, it's still easily clanked with and he's still limited to one.

 

[Das Koopa]

Das Koopa That's the first ACTUAL tier list I've seen posted. As in, not a pile of speculation and theory craft, actual data. Good job.

It's also extremely clear what needs nerfing.

Well, Theorycrafting and speculation are how we get to discover new things to begin with. I think a proper tier list requires a mixture of consideration of

-Character moveset advantages/disadvantages
-Tournament results
-Matchup spread

E.g. the Melee Tier List evidently didn't take the middle one much into consideration when it placed Doc, a dinosaur myth literally no Top 100 player uses, above Yoshi and Luigi.

I think Sheik is better than ZSS, but ZSS has had superior results; Circumstances behind tops also need to be looked at.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

This is mostly agreeable. The only [minor] issue I have is that there are enough shades between these definitions to justify the existence of X5/X5 matchups. Stuff like Ike vs Sheik could easily be exactly between what you define as 6/4 and 7/3 for all we know.

Having no real experience with Ike or Sheik worth mentioning, I can't make any direct claims as to their matchup, but again it comes back to necessity and precision. Is there a need (not a desire, a need) to get any given matchup analyzed to such a precise degree that we need to call it 65-35 instead of 6-4 or 7-3? And are we even capable of doing so honestly without making assumptions and fudging numbers?

I can understand the desire to get it as precise as possible, but I'm also a believer in the KISS principle and in this case I don't see much point to making it that complicated.

Honestly it's getting to the point where whenever I see someone call a matchup 55-45, I just mentally substitute 6-4 in my mind. Like people are afraid of admitting their character has a (dis)advantage or something.

 

[FallofBrawl]

Oh I wasn't saying that without ZeRo and Nairo there would be more crap characters in top 8, I was just stating the obvious that they're really dominant. That's all lol.

 

[Lavani]

I don't actually understand how Luma and Rosalina's shield interact though. Does her shield protect Luma at all? I'd appreciate if one of the more informed Rosalina mains in this thread could enlighten me. =D

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Unsure if the inconsistency is because of Z-axis shenanigans or if Luma needs to be completely covered by the shield, or if it's something else entirely. I'll look into that when I have some time.

Also sorry no gif right now.

EDIT: Z-axis doesn't seem likely, I guess I'm sticking to the "Luma needs to be completely covered" theory for now.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I think Falcon is too fast to be walled out reliably. Rosalina can't throw out hitboxes carelessly in this MU compared to a lot of her other MUs, because Falcon's going to dash grab her and punish her hard. Falcon definitely has disjoints on a few key moves like dash attack ( Lavani Bob-omb gif? =P), bair, and the rapid jab finisher (and maybe other parts of jab as well, IDK). I don't think disjoint is as important as for killing Luma having large hitboxes (this way Rosa can't protect Luma with positioning) and multi-hits (to muscle through Luma's clanking mechanism).

I don't actually understand how Luma and Rosalina's shield interact though. Does her shield protect Luma at all? I'd appreciate if one of the more informed Rosalina mains in this thread could enlighten me. =D

Mario seems to have far better frame data than Rosalina, who's pretty mediocre in CQC and relies on Luma as an aerial combo breaker. Being short, I'd imagine less of Mario's moves whiff against Pikachu compared to Rosalina as well.

Missed this. AFAIK Luma is protected by Rosalina's shield if and only if it's completely enclosed in the shield bubble? I'm not 100% certain but that's my best guess for now. Since Luma generally hangs out in front of Rosalina, this doesn't normally happen unless Rosalina does something to manipulate its location. In the general case of Rosalina standing there and trying to shield someone coming at her, Luma will almost certainly get hit by something. This makes shield pressure annoying for her to deal with, moreso than other characters, because it still hurts Luma even when Rosalina performs the "correct" option. Her best defense is simply not being there to begin with.

'd by Lavani.

 

[Y2Kay]

Maybe this 7/3 discussion would be more fruitful if people would list some more 7/3 matches in Smash 4, rather than just alluding to them.

Here are some I know of for mewtwo:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

 

[Latias]

Here are some I know of for mewtwo:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Even after the buffs?

 

[Mili]

This is mostly agreeable. The only [minor] issue I have is that there are enough shades between these definitions to justify the existence of X5/X5 matchups. Stuff like Ike vs Sheik could easily be exactly between what you define as 6/4 and 7/3 for all we know.

Ratios are nice at a glance, but really tell you very little meaningful information about matchups. Honestly, just being able to glance at some numbers with no context doesn't help me personally; just gives me stuff to complain about without fully understanding it.

If we want to use numbers, I don't mind 55-45 and such. The more accurate we can get the better, within reason.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is exactly why we always have problems when trying to discern the intricacies of each matchup within the game. Exactly like I said before, we can't even agree on ratios of all things so how can we truly discuss the matchup with no reference? We can say X character has a slight advantage of Y character but that hardly helps us. Putting numbers on matchups are a KEY factor in understanding them.

Like C0rvus said, glancing at random numbers won't help but saying beats doesn't either. But, if we DEFINE these numbers and put them into context by specifically explaining why, such as the large amount of multi-hit moves that Sonic has and how Ryu struggles to get in, we can begin to understand the matchup more.

If it was up to me, every post in this thread would be walls of text discussing specific matchups THAT THEIR OWN CHARACTER struggles in, rather than a bunch of people talking about characters they really don't have experience in. That's probably the reason why I only talk about Ryu rather than trying to discuss other characters. I know what does fundamentally and how I have to approach it with Ryu but I don't fully know all ins and outs of Sheik, I don't know all her little combos and how each player reacts, hence the need for a discussion including multiple people.

Personally, and if it was up to me everyone would use this system, I agree with ParanoidDrone in regards to the ratios. For me personally, matchups that people consider to be "55:45" in one character's favour is almost completely irrelevant because of player skill. Player skill often eliminates minute differences in the matchup to make it much closer to even. In the case, it's probably better just to say "X character has an extremely slight advantage due to Z reason over Y character."

Hopefully I made some sort of sense but we SERIOUSLY need to clean up our act when talking about matchup ratios in particular.

 

[Mario766]

I want to say Sheik vs Ike is 6-4


I REALLY do

but when I get stringed across the stage my only response is

"When do I get to play Smash again?"

"I'm not playing Marvel, let me PLAY."

 

[Y2Kay]

Even after the buffs?

TBH honest the buffs just made Mewtwo better at what he does, it doesn't help him beat the rushdown characters he struggled with pre patch.
The buffs didn't change the identity of the character, it just made him more cohesive, more competitive, and all around better at what he does. He's still gonna be comboed till the cows come home, but he's been greatly improved.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Having no real experience with Ike or Sheik worth mentioning, I can't make any direct claims as to their matchup, but again it comes back to necessity and precision. Is there a need (not a desire, a need) to get any given matchup analyzed to such a precise degree that we need to call it 65-35 instead of 6-4 or 7-3? And are we even capable of doing so honestly without making assumptions and fudging numbers?

Allow me to use your definitions for my main character, Fox.

It's well known that Rosalina is his worst matchup. As megafox has proven by beating dabuz a secondary is not needed but it's an uphill battle all the same. So if we used your definitions and ignored the X5/X5-option we'd have to put her at 4/6. Ryu is Fox' next worst matchup - difficult but not quite on the same level as Rosalina. Where do we put him? 4/6 is simply not where it's at as Ryu is not as difficult as Rosalina but it's certainly not 5/5. And how would we handle Sheik and Luigi who also both have an advantage against Fox but yet again not to the same extent as Ryu?

If we used X5 ratios we could put Rosalina at 35/65, Ryu at 40/60 and Luigi at 45/55 and it would reflect his matchups perfectly [Sheik would be either 45/55 or 40/60 depending on who you ask]. Even if you went as far as to put Rosalina at 30/70 and Ryu at 40/60 Luigi would still be misplaced at both 40/60 and 50/50. I would assume that the mains of a lot of characters will argue similarly for their character's matchups.

 

[Y2Kay]

Where Melee's balance seems like an oligarchy, Smash 4's balance is like The United State's democracy. They both seem to be fair. Smash 4 proudly touts how in this metagame, "any character can win a tournament", and the US government proudly touts that "with hard work, any man can succeed!" In practice though, it actually really isn't.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Allow me to use your definitions for my main character, Fox.

It's well known that Rosalina is his worst matchup. As megafox has proven by beating dabuz a secondary is not needed but it's an uphill battle all the same. So if we used your definitions and ignored the X5/X5-option we'd have to put her at 4/6. Ryu is Fox' next worst matchup - difficult but not quite on the same level as Rosalina. Where do we put him? 4/6 is simply not where it's at as Ryu is not as difficult as Rosalina but it's certainly not 5/5. And how would we handle Sheik and Luigi who also both have an advantage against Fox but yet again not to the same extent as Ryu?

If we used X5 ratios we could put Rosalina at 35/65, Ryu at 40/60 and Luigi at 45/55 and it would reflect his matchups perfectly [Sheik would be either 45/55 or 40/60 depending on who you ask]. Even if you went as far as to put Rosalina at 30/70 and Ryu at 40/60 Luigi would still be misplaced at both 40/60 and 50/50. I would assume that the mains of a lot of characters will argue similarly for their character's matchups.

I'd just as soon put them all at 6-4 honestly, going by what you've said. Maybe 5-5 for Luigi if you think he's closer to even than not. I'm not interested in how the Fox/Rosalina and Fox/Ryu matches rank relative to each other, just how they fall on the scale by themselves.

Also the definitions themselves can be modified. I just put "consider a secondary" at 7-3 because reasons. If you think that specific clause fits better at 8-2, that's a discussion you can have.

Also also, consider that the simple act of assigning a matchup ratio means we're trying to encapsulate everything that makes up a matchup -- neutral, advantage, disadvantage, edgeguarding, combo potential, kill setups, character-specific techniques if applicable -- into a single pair of numbers. There's honestly no way to get anything meaningful other than the absolute bare bones (do I win or lose overall/on average?) out of that.

Also also also I'm going to apply math theory here in a weird way. A real number is any number that can be represented by a fraction. Given any two (non-complex?) numbers, you can always find a real number in between those two chosen numbers. (I'd go so far as to claim there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two numbers, but I'm not completely certain that's true and I don't feel like checking the denser Wikipedia articles.) Applying similar logic in an admittedly tangential way, is it not feasible that even if we all agree that there are real and quantifiable 60-40 and 65-35 matchups for a specific character (Fox, in this case), that there could be some third matchup that is clearly worse for Fox than the 60-40 yet better for him than the 65-35? Where do we stop?

 

[Luigi player]

Imo Mewtwo vs Fox wasn't that bad prebuffs. It felt really doable to me, even though there's a feelable disadvantage. Would've felt like between +1 / +2 for Fox to me. Now with the buffs I'd like to believe it's only +1, but idk, haven't played the MU since the new patch. Abadango did quite well with Mewtwo against SH, but I wouldn't want to rate a MU just from one game, and we don't know about SHs MU experience etc.
But Mewtwo does feel more legit overall, that's one thing I'd say for sure. It feels like a decent mid tier that can actually win now without having to hugely outplay your opponent. Maybe it could even have nice MUs against some good characters. Rosa wasn't too bad before, and Sheik for example actually feels much more possible now. Fair got so much better it's like a dream.

 

[BSP]

Allow me to use your definitions for my main character, Fox.

It's well known that Rosalina is his worst matchup. As megafox has proven by beating dabuz a secondary is not needed but it's an uphill battle all the same. So if we used your definitions and ignored the X5/X5-option we'd have to put her at 4/6. Ryu is Fox' next worst matchup - difficult but not quite on the same level as Rosalina. Where do we put him? 4/6 is simply not where it's at as Ryu is not as difficult as Rosalina but it's certainly not 5/5. And how would we handle Sheik and Luigi who also both have an advantage against Fox but yet again not to the same extent as Ryu?

If we used X5 ratios we could put Rosalina at 35/65, Ryu at 40/60 and Luigi at 45/55 and it would reflect his matchups perfectly [Sheik would be either 45/55 or 40/60 depending on who you ask]. Even if you went as far as to put Rosalina at 30/70 and Ryu at 40/60 Luigi would still be misplaced at both 40/60 and 50/50. I would assume that the mains of a lot of characters will argue similarly for their character's matchups.

I'd put them all 40:60 and explicitly order them at that point.

 

[Mario766]

That'd put a lot of MUs, esp against Sheik, at 7-3.

Most places put +2 at just 'advantage' with +3 being 'Huge Advantage' which is when people would think to pull out a secondary.

Putting multiple MUs at 6-4 against you then saying 'This character does the best against us' doesn't seem that bad though.

Honestly I rate the Sheik vs Ike MU to be at 65-35. 7-3 sounds too harsh, which is like MK from Brawl level. The MU isn't THAT bad.

If we had to not use the .5 ratio, Sheik vs Ike would be a 6-4 but a really bad 6-4, going close to 7-3. No other MU for Ike is that bad.