Marth's Match-Up Chart thread

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kage we've always clashed heads on the boards, but my opinion of the warrior just went up 10 points.

 

[Archangel]

Whoa whoa whoa, some of you think MARTH has the adv, in Sheik vs. Marth? And the average consensus is 50-50 as well?????
Do people even play this game or do we just spend all day watching vids and playing theory fighter?

I hate to kill this post but...you read it wrong. It's the Puff Match-up that has Marth given the advantage slightly and the average consensus is about 50-50

The sheik Match-up is below that. The average consensus is 40-60.

Kage we've always clashed heads on the boards, but my opinion of the warrior just went up 10 points.

yeah Kage just became top tier poster imo

 

[Druggedfox]

Man, playing against kage would be awesome =] Hopefully I'll make it to RoM3 (most likely I will) and we can play there.

 

[Archangel]

I played Ganon in Dorf Dittos last Rom. He 2 stocked me twice I think. LOL

Dorf dittos are so fun imo. More people should play them. I also want to test my Marf against his Dorf.

 

[Divinokage]

Kage we've always clashed heads on the boards, but my opinion of the warrior just went up 10 points.

Have we? I don't remember. =P

I played Ganon in Dorf Dittos last Rom. He 2 stocked me twice I think. LOL

Dorf dittos are so fun imo. More people should play them. I also want to test my Marf against his Dorf.

I haven't played a Ganon ditto in a while, for some reason not many play this matchup anymore. lol. But ya we'll play at RoM 3!

Man, playing against kage would be awesome =] Hopefully I'll make it to RoM3 (most likely I will) and we can play there.

Alright! Sounds like fun.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Kage <3

I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was

Whoa whoa whoa, some of you think MARTH has the adv, in Sheik vs. Marth? And the average consensus is 50-50 as well?????

Do people even play this game or do we just spend all day watching vids and playing theory fighter?

No one has said Marth has the advantage. No one has even said its 50-50. The average consensus is 40-60 is Sheik's favor.

You misread my post dawg. Read again.

 

[the king of murder]

I really want to sig Kage's speech

But it's too long.

 

[KirbyKaze]

LOL. Fox doesn't have 100-0 against anyone because he's got to high of hitstun. Every character can Chaingrab or gimp him or both. So it's unlikely 100% of the time he'll win.

Oh, you.

 

[Archangel]

Oh, you.

What? Seriously who doesn't know the match-up vs fox with their characters these days? Anyone who doesn't know it by now should be drug out into the street and shot.

 

[KirbyKaze]

What? Seriously who doesn't know the match-up vs fox with their characters these days? Anyone who doesn't know it by now should be drug out into the street and shot.

Fox can certainly win 100% of the time vs Kirby if he really wants to.

 

[Divinokage]

Fox can certainly win 100% of the time vs Kirby if he really wants to.

Ya it's not just match-up experience, there's also out smarting your opponent.

 

[Archangel]

Fox can certainly win 100% of the time vs Kirby if he really wants to.

all stages and CPs considered.....I am not sure anyone has the finger dexterity to play 100 matches with nobody but fox and manage to beat Kirby all 100 times. Besides Fox is bound to suicide or something eventually. Remember Jman vs Amsah at Pound4?

sad day.

 

[KirbyKaze]

What if they just take breaks in between matches if Fox's handler gets tired?

Kirby doesn't really have the tools to abuse a suicide in the same way Sheik can (no humanly doable invincible ledgestall) and Jman didn't really steal the edge from Amsah, which could have killed him a few times.

As for outsmarting... the way Fox beats Kirby on a lot of levels is just by super **** camping him forever and by making the stage itself a nightmare for Kirby. So... he's not really required to think to win this matchup; there's not much to outsmart. You just have to basically follow a simple routine (and variants) to keep Kirby from hitting you.

 

[Archangel]

LOL yeah I guess so. Still it's Kirby. Even if you managed to beat the best kirby 100 times it would be like beating the best senior citizen in a 100meter dash 100 times.

 

[KirbyKaze]

i totally beat that grandma fair and square

 

[Rappster]

i totally beat that grandma fair and square

you beat grandmothers too?

i think it's not a 100-0 matchup because occasionally the kirby will take a stock off of the fox.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

you beat grandmothers too?

i think it's not a 100-0 matchup because occasionally the kirby will take a stock off of the fox.

This post is exactly why the numbers system falls apart at the extremes. Everyone makes numbers comparatively in the smash community, very much unlike other fighting games. We put Peach at 60-40 and Samus at 65-35 not necessarily because Samus loses 65% of the time, but because she does worse than Peach and we want to represent that. Unfortunately, the negligibles are much harder to quantify this way; they are so much worse than the low tiers that their numbers start getting monstrously big.

Ultimately, this problem emerges because we have no clear definition of what the numbers mean. If we say "its the probability of how often character x beats character y in a SET" then its easy to argue Fox-Kirby is 100-0 in Fox's favor; a Fox of equal skill and equal matchup knowledge will probably never lose a set to a Kirby. However, if we say, like Rappster "its the probability of how often character x can takes STOCKS off character y" then 100-0 is inarguable. Kirby WILL take stocks off.

Its a funny situation that makes the negligibles' numbers looks silly. Personally, I'd prefer we make a definition already (I like the SET one better because it takes into account counterpicks and is more relevant to a tournament setting) so that our numbers are more accurate.

 

[Druggedfox]

The simplest definition in general seems to be the matches/100 you would win. Or matches/20 (because that's what the scale actually is). If you played each match normally (stuff like getting tired obviously doesn't have an effect on the matchup) then how many matches out of 20 would that character win. Fox is going to win every time under normal circumstances; we don't assume that either player will SD or something in any match.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think its more reasonable to go by stocks. 60-40 should mean for every 60 stocks X takes, Y takes 40. Fox eventually has to hit kirby, even if he lasers kirby until 999% he still needs to hit with a jab or nair or something in order to take the stock. Because of this, it gives kirby a chance, even if its a small one, to retaliate or make an effective move. Even if 1 hit from fox = a whole stock from kirby and kirby can only get 1 hit at a time, the match-up can never be 100-0.

Not saying i have ever played the match-up or are giving an opinion on the match-up, just saying i dont think its possible to have a 100-0 match-up in melee.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

The simplest definition in general seems to be the matches/100 you would win. Or matches/20 (because that's what the scale actually is). If you played each match normally (stuff like getting tired obviously doesn't have an effect on the matchup) then how many matches out of 20 would that character win. Fox is going to win every time under normal circumstances; we don't assume that either player will SD or something in any match.

Thats also another valid definition. It has a few problems I don't like though, which is why I think the set definition is preferable. As stated earlier, counterpicks and bans are too important to leave out of a definition in my opinion. Also, if they are left out, what stage are we going to be playing these matches on exactly? The neutrals on random select? All of the stages on random?

But there is a bigger issue: it condenses the list. The way we order the relevant characters, as stated earlier, is by comparison. Relatively small differences in matchup difficulty are represented this way. Marth/Mewtwo is 70-30 because it is worse than Marth/Samus. But how much higher can you go than 70-30 with win %? Most people are very reluctant to hand out 90-10s and 100-0s with a definition based on % of wins...its hard to think that a character could lose so badly that they NEVER win a match. But based on our comparison method, we have to have matchups like Marth/Ness way worse than Marth/Mewtwo, even if its tough to think that Ness wouldn't take at least a few games. Mixing a comparison method with win % isn't nearly as smooth as it is with set %...set % makes numbers like 90-10 and 100-0 more tolerable, thus expanding the range for which we can make comparative distinctions.

I think its more reasonable to go by stocks. 60-40 should mean for every 60 stocks X takes, Y takes 40. Fox eventually has to hit kirby, even if he lasers kirby until 999% he still needs to hit with a jab or nair or something in order to take the stock. Because of this, it gives kirby a chance, even if its a small one, to retaliate or make an effective move. Even if 1 hit from fox = a whole stock from kirby and kirby can only get 1 hit at a time, the match-up can never be 100-0.

Not saying i have ever played the match-up or are giving an opinion on the match-up, just saying i dont think its possible to have a 100-0 match-up in melee.

The problems with the stock % definition are similar to the win % definition but more extreme; it condenses the list even further. But it has an even bigger issue: it raises the question of whether all stocks are created equal. As we saw in Amsah/Jman at Pound 4, being ahead or behind on stocks can affect your capability of taking or losing additional stocks. Also, stocks have varying value depending on the matchup. In a Fox/Falco match-up, even among equal players, you will see 3 and 4 stock matches fairly frequently. In a floaty matchup though? 3 stocking someone is dominating them. 3 stocking someone in Fox/Falco is not the same as 3 stocking someone in Peach/Jiggs.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

if u want to go off game wins, fox should have 100-0 match-ups vs every character except falco because a top level fox could simply choose to always laser and run without engaging and anything other than that is a mistake

actually some characters like falcon and marth would only have 70-30 match-ups because sometimes they could catch or corner fox.


i think the whole concept of having the numbers represent a statistic in the game is silly. should be a difficulty level of sorts

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

if u want to go off game wins, fox should have 100-0 match-ups vs every character except falco because a top level fox could simply choose to always laser and run without engaging and anything other than that is a mistake

I don't think thats true at all...

i think the whole concept of having the numbers represent a statistic in the game is silly. should be a difficulty level of sorts

Well, thats what they are. 0-100 is "IMPOSSIBLE", 40-60 is "HARD", 50-50 is "NEUTRAL", 60-40 is "EASY", and so on. What we are discussing is what exactly is impossible/hard/easy? Taking a set? Taking a game? Taking a stock? Taking a set may seem impossible for a Kirby against a Fox but taking a stock sure isn't. And thats why we see varying numbers, particularly when dealing with the negligibles.

 

[Archangel]

I love foxes that try to run and laser. They never know how to fight anyone. Just chase them down and read them then hit them then edge-guard. No fox is gonna beat me 100 times.

Still the % system is fine with me as long as you put% next to the number

 

[OverLord]

actually I agree with Sveet on Fox running wild lasering.

Personally I really don't care about what %s mean. I read 'em like: "60-40 advantage means that I can handle this match-up easily, 30-70 means I have to work hard to win this match-up" and so on.

The point is just "know your match-ups". If you don't know how to handle Samus, I don't think you'll feel 65-35 on your side.

 

[Druggedfox]

@TCB

Most people DO have a problem with issuing out 90-10s etc... but I think that's what the problem is.

I think people need to realize the severity of certain matchups, or how close certain matchups are. 55:45 is reallllllly close. It's also why when I see sheikikachu as 80-20 I buy it.

Regardless, set % wouldn't be a bad way to do it either. I just think it should be based on a number of wins: either games, or sets, or whatever...

 

[Tero.]

If we have a 80:20 MU, let's say Sheik vs *insert bottom tier* we have to assume Sheik's going to win (if both players are about the same skill level), eventually we don't only assume it because it's gonna happen anyway.

So let's think of 100 matches as 100 individual matches, Sheik's going to win all of them still we consider the MU "only" 80:20.

By definitions stated above, every MU worse than 60:40 should actually be 100:0.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

If we have a 80:20 MU, let's say Sheik vs *insert bottom tier* we have to assume Sheik's going to win (if both players are about the same skill level), eventually we don't only assume it because it's gonna happen anyway.

So let's think of 100 matches as 100 individual matches, Sheik's going to win all of them still we consider the MU "only" 80:20.

By definitions stated above, every MU worse than 60:40 should actually be 100:0.

You are understanding the definitions wrong. Under the match % definition, Sheik wins 60% of all matches. That does not mean she will win every match, but that on average, over 20 games, she will win 12. Winning 80% of the games means she will win 16 out of 20 on average.

Remember that probabilities are independent of one another. Winning once does not necessarily mean you will win again. Also, the definition does not apply to each match; it is not saying you have an 80% chance of winning a particular match, but that the average of the probabilities of winning per 20 matches is 16.

 

[Tero.]

I'm not understanding the definition wrong, I'm just stating that the definition actually IS wrong.

No character with an 80-20 MU will win 4 out of 20 games considering both players have equal skill and MU knowledge.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I'm not understanding the definition wrong, I'm just stating that the definition actually IS wrong.

No character with an 80-20 MU will win 4 out of 20 games considering both players have equal skill and MU knowledge.

Then it shouldn't be 80-20...

I don't understand, Marth/Samus is 65/35, so higher than 60/40 like you said before. Do you really believe that Samus can't win a match against Marth at all?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I dont think that a samus would win 35% of the games vs a marth of equal skill. As the match-up difficulty gets worse, the possibility of winning for samus gets dramatically lower.

i'd say its something like this:
50-50: 50%
45-55: 40%
40-60: 25%
35-65: 10%
rest: unwinnable without being drastically better than the opponent.

 

[Druggedfox]

I'm wondering which definition in particular Tero is referring to. By the argument he's making, I thought he was referring to the stock taking definition...

If you're referring to the %win... I don't see why that definition doesn't work. The thing we're trying to do is establish that as the official definition; currently, no one has any set definition, so 80:20 matchups DONT fit that criteria. I think they should be adjusted to fit that definition =P

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Theres huge flaws with every statistical system for the numbers. The numbers have never meant a statistic, not to mention every statistic is impossible to measure by definition.

 

[t3h Icy]

See, I like using the number as per stock.

So for example in a 40:60 match-up you have a 40% of the first stock, 40% of the second stock, etc. The only thing is that you have to factor in partial stocks since after you get killed, chances are the opponent isn't at 0.

It works out a lot better mathemetically.

 

[Dart!]

Revival of...dead thread

 

[Druggedfox]

Reassessment of ganon matchup:

So it turns out that if you just fair, dash dance, and grab... well, it DOES beat ganon for a couple matches until he figures you out. Then you actually have to do something =/

 

[Archangel]

It's true. The Match-up seems auto but experienced Ganon's might **** you up.

 

[Druggedfox]

Now I'm sad though; marth has to do more then 2-3 things to ACTUALLY have the advantage over ganon

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Like thinking or not doing the same thing over and over?

 

[Archangel]

If you switch it up it's still slight Marth's favor.

Ganon can't really switch it up tbh.

 

[Druggedfox]

Like thinking or not doing the same thing over and over?

Exactly