Character Competitive Impressions

[Smog Frog]

if we're being realistic, we would use the highest concentration of players. but that's for glory and we know how awful most of those players are. for accuracy purposes, we would use mid level players. but then comes the question, "what constitutes an average, mid tier player?"

for these purposes, would it be best to make a spreadsheet of the matchup chart(which i already have made, btw) and just PM it to professional main of each character(ie, a main of a character that is consistently getting results at either a:regionals or b: stacked (bi)weeklies(think smash attack)), and ask them to fill out what they know? it seems like it would produce (the closest to) an accurate chart that leaves the unexplored matchups blank, that would be filled up more as the matchups get explored. but there would be some problems; mainly for severely underrepped characters with no notable mains( come off as characters with no notable rep), with some borderline cases in characters like where there IS rep but its either scattered very thin() or not chosen in favor of a better secondary() or there is only one notable main of said character(). but then again, best leave unexplored matchups blank, right?

 

[Luco]

Hahah, quite a few points there that I was going to bring up myself. I think after EVO might be a really nice time to kick off the project, and it should start off with a fair few large names behind it who will push the boards into action on it. Maybe a thread to announce that it's going to happen would be appropriate (or one that at least communicates with the community over it) and then later a thread that serves as the main hub for the project whilst individual character boards do MU discussions and stuff. You get the idea. =P

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Dittos are presumably the only true even MU. Everything else just feels close to even and somehow gets rounded down to even.
Its more accurate often to presume its not even because it probably isnt.
Though getting hung up on the objective truth of a MU isn't a great use of time given all the variables at play.

MUs won't feel so nonsensical relative to other smashes without infinites and CGs. You can't accurately spreadsheet it, especially when sometimes notions are "this char has more safe on block attacks" which get denounced if the oppositions play style is just to walk backwards and whiff punish instead of blocking...

A tier list of the meta is what I prefer sprinkled with some presumption. If you know your list won't be objective truth anyways, might as well base it on realities. Dont really need haphazard MUs for non played characters either if there's no real data/experience of it. I thought Gheb was working on a tourney based MU chart,but haven't heard any update about it.

 

[PUK]

The problem with tourney based things is, while there is a lot of data, they're are hard to gather because it needs to speak several languages, to know where data are put and to know if data are relevant ( if you don't know who are each high level in the tournament it can make your data wrong). One person can't do that. Even all smashboard community put together is too US centered to do that.

 

[Project Quarantine]

Perhaps we should keep the ratio semantics discussion to an outside thread? This is "Character Competitive Impressions," after all.

Just a suggestion

 

[GeneralLedge]

Hey guys I have a theory that the Olimar/Alph MU is roughly 55/45 in Olimar's favor. I'm having trouble finding footage of Alph players, though.

 

[PUK]

Olimar is an officer, alph is an ingeneer, so olimar win. It's like in life man.

 

[Ffamran]

Hey guys I have a theory that the Olimar/Alph MU is roughly 55/45 in Olimar's favor. I'm having trouble finding footage of Alph players, though.

Olimar is an officer, alph is an ingeneer, so olimar win. It's like in life man.

Guys, stop playing around. If you want to crack jokes like this, go somewhere else if you can't connect it to relevant discussion.

 

[Thinkaman]

Hard counter (winner): +3
Soft counter (winner): +2
Advantage: +1
Even: +0
Disadvantage: -1
Soft counter (loser): -7
Hard counter (loser): -1000

I think a weighting like this only serves its purpose if it is weighted recursively on the tier of the person in question.

Being hard countered by Zelda is a totally different animal than being hard countered by Diddy Kong.

Guys, stop playing around. If you want to crack jokes like this, go somewhere else if you can't connect it to relevant discussion.

For example, this post was a more significant hard counter because he has a higher tier red name and his sig matches the post.

 

[KenMeister]

if we're being realistic, we would use the highest concentration of players. but that's for glory and we know how awful most of those players are. for accuracy purposes, we would use mid level players. but then comes the question, "what constitutes an average, mid tier player?"

for these purposes, would it be best to make a spreadsheet of the matchup chart(which i already have made, btw) and just PM it to professional main of each character(ie, a main of a character that is consistently getting results at either a:regionals or b: stacked (bi)weeklies(think smash attack)), and ask them to fill out what they know? it seems like it would produce (the closest to) an accurate chart that leaves the unexplored matchups blank, that would be filled up more as the matchups get explored. but there would be some problems; mainly for severely underrepped characters with no notable mains( come off as characters with no notable rep), with some borderline cases in characters like where there IS rep but its either scattered very thin() or not chosen in favor of a better secondary() or there is only one notable main of said character(). but then again, best leave unexplored matchups blank, right?

KirinBlaze and Rizen are really good reps of LInk, and have mained him since the Brawl days. Aside from that, I can't think of anyone else who isn't a multi-character main (like PinkFresh and Nairo), or pulls said character out for friendlies only.

 

[Diddy Kong]

How does Pikachu fare against Sheik, Sonic and Luigi? I think those are Diddy's hardest matchups.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

This matchup discussion is getting us nowhere. You know, that place Lucas came out of?
Let's talk about toon link. Where does he stand post-patch? Sometimes I forget he's in this game because you never hear about him.

 

[bc1910]

I like Tink. His bomb play is really solid, I find myself getting locked down by good Tinks more than any other camper because his mobility isn't bad and his bombs travel at very convenient trajectories. He struggles against shields a lot though, his options for beating shield are among the worst in the game sadly. And I feel like he'll get less threatening once people get good at catching his bombs and throwing them back.

 

[DavemanCozy]

whoa, RIP sticky. How long has it been? Haven't browsed here for a while.

Came to ask; what is the impression of Mewtwo? Imo, being bigger and lighter than Kirby is really bad, specially since he has no Luma

 

[Diddy Kong]

whoa, RIP sticky. How long has it been? Haven't browsed here for a while.

Came to ask; what is the impression of Mewtwo? Imo, being bigger and lighter than Kirby is really bad, specially since he has no Luma

About the same as Melee I'd say.

 

[Cheezin]

Sorry to continue on the matchup discussion, but the way I view it is the average percentage of success per situation throughout the entire matchup.
For example: In a 30-70 matchup, you will succeed in, on average, 3 out of 10 situations during the match. This thought process implies that a 30 - 70 matchup is virtually unwinnable, while also accounting for the chance of winning through outplaying your opponent.
Just my view!

 

[Diddy Kong]

In Smash 4's enviorment, we can see 7-3 as unwinnable, cause I doubt there are that many, if any 8-2 matchups or worse this time around.

 

[Luco]

I dunno, if it just so happened that had the worst match-up in the game - say, a 35:65 - against , I don't think we should be calling that MU 'unwinnable' just because it's relatively the worst MU in the game.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

Look, there's a reason why there are no "unwinnable" matchups in this game: they've effectively removed a lot of the bull**** from it, namely 0-death chain (Freaking DeDeDe) grabs, 0-death jab locks, Olimar's 7 Pikmin stuff, Falco's lasers, etc. That kinda stuff made the Sheik matchup impossible for a Bowser to win in Melee, and that's the same kinda stuff that DeDeDe had to invalidate half the Brawl cast. I just don't see how any matchup can be that unwinnable in this game.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Look, there's a reason why there are no "unwinnable" matchups in this game: they've effectively removed a lot of the bull**** from it, namely 0-death chain (Freaking DeDeDe) grabs, 0-death jab locks, Olimar's 7 Pikmin stuff, Falco's lasers, etc. That kinda stuff made the Sheik matchup impossible for a Bowser to win in Melee, and that's the same kinda stuff that DeDeDe had to invalidate half the Brawl cast. I just don't see how any matchup can be that unwinnable in this game.

Fox does have his jab lock that looks pretty frustrating to deal with (don't get hit by a frame 2 move?) but I don't think it's an infinite.

 

[BBC7]

Fox does have his jab lock that looks pretty frustrating to deal with (don't get hit by a frame 2 move?) but I don't think it's an infinite.

Wasn't that patched out? Or is it something else I'm thinking of?

 

[Quickhero]

Wasn't that patched out? Or is it something else I'm thinking of?

Fox's jab infinite is very much still a thing, but Link's got removed.

Trust me...I learned the hard way while I was playing Lucario this one time...the thing that is nice though is that U-Smash isn't a GUARANTEED kill, meaning that even if you get hit there is still a chance of getting out alive. It also only can only infinite at such an early percent against a select few of characters and you still have a noticeable chance at making Fox not being able to use his jab for an ample amount of time with these characters so it's not a match-up that's unwinnable, at least right now.

 

[Blobface]

Fox's Jab isn't an infinite (AFAIK), though it does chain into itself multiple times and guarantees an U-smash. While it's powerful, annoying, and quite frankly a little cheesy, it's certainly not going to make matchups unwinnable.

 

[Sodo]

Sorry to continue on the matchup discussion, but the way I view it is the average percentage of success per situation throughout the entire matchup.
For example: In a 30-70 matchup, you will succeed in, on average, 3 out of 10 situations during the match. This thought process implies that a 30 - 70 matchup is virtually unwinnable, while also accounting for the chance of winning through outplaying your opponent.
Just my view!

This is how I thought it was... how do people think it is? I thought a 30:70 matchup meant you win roughly 30% of the time if both players are equally skilled. Now I'm confused.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

.

Look, there's a reason why there are no "unwinnable" matchups in this game: they've effectively removed a lot of the bull**** from it, namely 0-death chain (Freaking DeDeDe) grabs, 0-death jab locks, Olimar's 7 Pikmin stuff, Falco's lasers, etc. That kinda stuff made the Sheik matchup impossible for a Bowser to win in Melee, and that's the same kinda stuff that DeDeDe had to invalidate half the Brawl cast. I just don't see how any matchup can be that unwinnable in this game.

Removing chain grabs just made d3 suck. Having a CG In brawl didn't really determine the MU's. There's still other factors in the game that didn't revolve around chain grabs. I don't recall MK having a CG it was just d3 was brain dead. Falco's CG didn't determine any MU's for him. Hell how much did Wario chain grab change things for him?

Other than IC and d3 cg didn't determine a character strength or MU's. However, even then it's not like MU's were an instant loss because of CG.

 

[Cheezin]

This is how I thought it was... how do people think it is? I thought a 30:70 matchup meant you win roughly 30% of the time if both players are equally skilled. Now I'm lconfused.

A lot of smashers suggest that you win 3 out of 10 matches in a 30/70. I was suggesting that maybe you win 3 out of 10 specific situations during the match. Which would ultimately mean you are going to lose every match (unless you are significantly outplayed).
I'm not sure if I'm conveying my point properly. I can't seem to muster up an example...

 

[Luco]

.


Removing chain grabs just made d3 suck. Having a CG In brawl didn't really determine the MU's. There's still other factors in the game that didn't revolve around chain grabs. I don't recall MK having a CG it was just d3 was brain dead. Falco's CG didn't determine any MU's for him. Hell how much did Wario chain grab change things for him?

Other than IC and d3 cg didn't determine a character strength or MU's. However, even then it's not like MU's were an instant loss because of CG.

(DK's infamous -4)

(CG to the end ---> edge-guard ---> repeat ---> gg) (This also applied to and a few others)

 

[Trifroze]

I thought a 30:70 matchup meant you win roughly 30% of the time if both players are equally skilled. Now I'm confused.

That's how it is in theory and with that definition only 0:10 is definitively unwinnable (although people prefer 1:9 because hell, the opponent could SD 3 times).

The other side of the argument is that if a matchup is 3:7, it suggests the other character has much better tools for winning, and since tools are more important on a high level and mistakes don't happen nearly as much, it might as well be 2:8 or 1:9. Then again if this was the case, what would we call matchups where the character has an even worse situation than in 3:7? And in my opinion that's where this argument fails.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

(DK's infamous -4)

I mentioned d3 and you deserve whatever if you played Ness in brawl. So whatever point you're trying to make is invalid. Not like the MU was even ir in Ness's favor and the CG drastically changed the MU.

 

[Sodo]

A lot of smashers suggest that you win 3 out of 10 matches in a 30/70. I was suggesting that maybe you win 3 out of 10 specific situations during the match. Which would ultimately mean you are going to lose every match (unless you are significantly outplayed).
I'm not sure if I'm conveying my point properly. I can't seem to muster up an example...

Oh okay I see what you're saying. I think the matchup chart indicates that, when both players are of equal skill, the matchup ratio will say who has a decided advantage/disadvantage. Take the Melee matchup chart as an example, where the Sheik/Bowser matchup is 100:0. This indicates that, when both players are equal in skill, Sheik should win 100% of the time. Obviously that's not always the case, but between two top professionals of equal skill you could make an argument that in 100 games the Sheik player will win every single time.

The limitation on something like a matchup chart is that it assumes there is such a thing as totally equal skill and that a player has the optimal playstyle to fit the character. But, until we have advanced metrics to help us understand these kinds of things, the matchup chart is the best thing we have.

That's how it is in theory and with that definition only 0:10 is definitively unwinnable (although people prefer 1:9 because hell, the opponent could SD 3 times).

The other side of the argument is that if a matchup is 3:7, it suggests the other character has much better tools for winning, and since tools are more important on a high level and mistakes don't happen nearly as much, it might as well be 2:8 or 1:9. Then again if this was the case, what would we call matchups where the character has an even worse situation than in 3:7? And in my opinion that's where this argument fails.

Does a matchup chart assume that players are at the highest level? Or does it disregard that and just go with an "equal skill" basis?

 

[Luco]

I mentioned d3 and you deserve whatever if you played Ness in brawl. So whatever point you're trying to make is invalid. Not like the MU was even ir in Ness's favor and the CG drastically changed the MU.

You mentioned but also said and I quote: "However, even then it's not like MU's were an instant loss because of CG." - I used the DK DDD MU to show why that was blatantly untrue.

And it doesn't matter whether I used Ness in Brawl - CGs were the exact reason why he was bad and that was common knowledge!

Ganny and Link suffered from CGs as well. How can you say that point is irrelevant when I've just demonstrated why CGs change their MUs and thus cause imbalance?

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

It was game over when people picked link and ganon vs MK Lololol.

You mentioned but also said and I quote: "However, even then it's not like MU's were an instant loss because of CG." - I used the DK DDD MU to show why that was blatantly untrue.

And it doesn't matter whether I used Ness in Brawl - CGs were the exact reason why he was bad and that was common knowledge!

Ganny and Link suffered from CGs as well. How can you say that point is irrelevant when I've just demonstrated why CGs change their MUs and thus cause imbalance?

iI think I'm explaining it wrong but even in the case of d3 vs dk that was an outlier. The point I was attempting to make was that plenty of characters had CG and it didn't determine MU. Ness was a bad character period with or withour CG once again the Marth mu didn't swing just because Ness got CG. The same is true for others.

 

[Luco]

It was game over when people picked link and ganon vs MK Lololol.

... Which was very clearly influenced by CGs.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

... Which was very clearly influenced by CGs.

Yes because link and ganon went even cs mk before the CG. they were able to land safely vs him and recover vs him as well.

There also Wario who was a good character despite CG and GR.

 

[Luco]

Yes because link and ganon went even cs mk before the CG. they were able to land safely vs him and recover vs him as well.

No, but not having the CG certainly would have made those MUs FAR more manageable.

I'm not sure you understand quite why CGs are a big deal. CGs aren't just used to get free damage. Characters in the advantaged state (ie those doing the chaingrabbing) are also able to put you into a terrible place for free at their discretion. You just made the point yourself that Link and Ganny aren't able to recover well because of the bat. Well maybe that situation wouldn't be quite as crippling if it wasn't for the fact that MK could grab them and put them straight into that state merely by bypassing a shield.

We know that characters in smash with strong grab games will usually do very well if there's nothing severe elsewhere holding them back. Ness' Bthrow is such a big deal for that reason alone. Pre-patch, Diddy was guilty of the exact same thing. How insane is it then if you can not only get a grab, but then force a rival character into a position they're just not going to win in? That's more than dominating. That's the equivalent of picking Ganny and committing seppuku at the select screen.

I'm not going to pretend that CGs flipped MU ratings. But they didn't need to, to be a MASSIVE deal. DK v Ness would have been close to even if DK had no infinite. We would have won the PT MU if Charizard didn't have the infinite. Ness v Marth would have likely been a -2 at least if there was no CG (Marth was pretty bad regardless, I won't deny that). DDD's CGs were the sole reason he was known as the 'gatekeeper' of the top tiers, why he invalidated DK in that MU.

To say CGs didn't have a massive impact on the meta game is to deny why Brawl's tier list and MU chart looked the way it did. There is a plethora of evidence, both in theory and in practice, that shows why CGs were such a problem. You can't present low tiers to me and say them being low tier already is evidence that CGs don't mean anything. It's the other way around. CGs were one of the big reason these characters were low tier in the first place!

Wario is a good example of a good character who would have been even better had DDD's CG in particular (it was a reasonably common MU even at top level) not been holding him back. Ness was commonly said to have been a potential high mid tier if he didn't suffer from the CG, and Lucas was in a similar boat, though he had a few other issues Ness didn't suffer from.

I need to sleep, so if someone else hasn't responded already then I'll address any further points in the morning.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

No, but not having the CG certainly would have made those MUs FAR more manageable.

I'm not sure you understand quite why CGs are a big deal. CGs aren't just used to get free damage. Characters in the advantaged state (ie those doing the chaingrabbing) are also able to put you into a terrible place for free at their discretion. You just made the point yourself that Link and Ganny aren't able to recover well because of the bat. Well maybe that situation wouldn't be quite as crippling if it wasn't for the fact that MK could grab them and put them straight into that state merely by bypassing a shield.

We know that characters in smash with strong grab games will usually do very well if there's nothing severe elsewhere holding them back. Ness' Bthrow is such a big deal for that reason alone. Pre-patch, Diddy was guilty of the exact same thing. How insane is it then if you can not only get a grab, but then force a rival character into a position they're just not going to win in? That's more than dominating. That's the equivalent of picking Ganny and committing seppuku at the select screen.

I'm not going to pretend that CGs flipped MU ratings. But they didn't need to, to be a MASSIVE deal. DK v Ness would have been close to even if DK had no infinite. We would have won the PT MU if Charizard didn't have the infinite. Ness v Marth would have likely been a -2 at least if there was no CG (Marth was pretty bad regardless, I won't deny that). DDD's CGs were the sole reason he was known as the 'gatekeeper' of the top tiers, why he invalidated DK in that MU.

To say CGs didn't have a massive impact on the meta game is to deny why Brawl's tier list and MU chart looked the way it did. There is a plethora of evidence, both in theory and in practice, that shows why CGs were such a problem. You can't present low tiers to me and say them being low tier already is evidence that CGs don't mean anything. It's the other way around. CGs were one of the big reason these characters were low tier in the first place!

I'm saying that the low tiers and whatever else happened in the MU didn't matter much. Bad characters are bad for a reason a lot of things happens to them. CG aren't the end all I played Wario in brawl so I've been through it all. Yet Wario was still considered a good character despite CG and GR. So at the end of the day your character didn't have the tools to compete.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Yet nobody played Wario because of how much effort it took. He had at least three significantly bad matchups in Dedede, MK, and Marth.

 

[Cheezin]

Oh okay I see what you're saying. I think the matchup chart indicates that, when both players are of equal skill, the matchup ratio will say who has a decided advantage/disadvantage. Take the Melee matchup chart as an example, where the Sheik/Bowser matchup is 100:0. This indicates that, when both players are equal in skill, Sheik should win 100% of the time. Obviously that's not always the case, but between two top professionals of equal skill you could make an argument that in 100 games the Sheik player will win every single time.

The limitation on something like a matchup chart is that it assumes there is such a thing as totally equal skill and that a player has the optimal playstyle to fit the character. But, until we have advanced metrics to help us understand these kinds of things, the matchup chart is the best thing we have.



Does a matchup chart assume that players are at the highest level? Or does it disregard that and just go with an "equal skill" basis?

Matchup charts for Smash assume the highest level of play. Some other games assume mid-level.

On another note: I don't understand what is keeping from being a top tier threat. He has great combos at all percents, kill confirms off a great dash attack and awesome grab, above average mobility, fantastic offstage game, and has good OOS options. Does his range make him suffer? Or is there more?

Edit: And also a great (theoretical) matchup spread!

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Yet nobody played Wario because of how much effort it took. He had at least three significantly bad matchups in Dedede, MK, and Marth.

You DMG phantom X fiction Malcolm Krystedez Gluttony and Waymas. There's probably more which I'm forgetting but there were definitely Wario players..... and then there wasn't.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

Fox does have his jab lock that looks pretty frustrating to deal with (don't get hit by a frame 2 move?) but I don't think it's an infinite.

That's escapable almost immediately for some characters. It's nothing game breaking and is likely to get patched anyways. I think Links was patched because it was harder to escape and had more damage output. Tbh, I don't see anyone complaining about that. People don't groan when Fox gets a jab the way people would when Diddy got a grab pre-patch, and I don't even see it used too often anyways. It'll probably get patched tho :Sakurai: