Match-Up Chart (Outdated); please refer to the new chart.

[JPOBS]

that thing about ratio of stocks taken is dumb.

 

[victra♥]

i think pikachu ***** peach LOL

like seriously

its like playing against a fox you can't gimp or cg

 

[Cosmo!]

this discussion reminds me about a topic that would be fun to read about: variance in competitive games (specifically, this one)

check out SS vs SFAT. SS 4 stocks him game 2, but loses the set.

matches can vary greatly, it just happens. somebody should write an essay about this and analyze this game in regards to variance.

results vary while there are only a few luck based things (peach stitch/bomb, g&w j9, luigi misfire). there are a lot of extremely precise things, however, like doing a move a frame too late, that can greatly change the outcome of the match. it doesn't matter if you are "playing bad," things can just.. go wrong sometimes.

 

[Siglemic]

i think pikachu ***** peach lol

like seriously

its like playing against a fox you can't gimp or cg

this is what i've been saying !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Winston]

that thing about ratio of stocks taken is dumb.

any particular reason? I don't think it's any dumber that "match win percentage", which a fair number of people seem to support.

this discussion reminds me about a topic that would be fun to read about: variance in competitive games (specifically, this one)

check out SS vs SFAT. SS 4 stocks him game 2, but loses the set.

matches can vary greatly, it just happens. somebody should write an essay about this and analyze this game in regards to variance.

results vary while there are only a few luck based things (peach stitch/bomb, g&w j9, luigi misfire). there are a lot of extremely precise things, however, like doing a move a frame too late, that can greatly change the outcome of the match. it doesn't matter if you are "playing bad," things can just.. go wrong sometimes.

Yeah, there's plenty of variance in smash.

The factors I can think of right now are nerves, tiredness/hunger, focus, tech skill messups, momentum, pseudorandom decisions/guesses, and the extremely tight timing windows that you mentioned.

 

[Strong Badam]

i was pretty surprised after money matching bunbun, he told me afterwards that peach isn't that hard for kirby and i'm inclined to believe him. when it comes to expertise and knowledge of the character, low tier mains definitely have an advantage over sheik #5692 who thinks that sheik goes 90-10 with the whole negligible tier because she's sheik.

this doesn't have anything at all to do with the match-up, though, that has to do with how bad that sheik player is.

 

[KAOSTAR]

then clearly the numbers should be an indication of how difficult the MU is.

fox vs marth is about equal but fox v ganon is much easier.

it doesn't make any claim about stocks, wins, loses, sets...only the base level of difficulty assuming player skill and knowledge are equal.

 

[TheGoat]

then clearly the numbers should be an indication of how difficult the MU is.

fox vs marth is about equal but fox v ganon is much easier.

it doesn't make any claim about stocks, wins, loses, sets...only the base level of difficulty assuming player skill and knowledge are equal.

Yeah, it's just that the difficulty translates to stocks, wins, and losses.


Just throwing this out there, determining a matchup by examining results by stocks is generally stupid.

 

[N64]

bunbun, by assuming high level play and equal skill etc we are also inherently assuming that neither player has inhuman skill, and thus sub-optimal moves happen, however greatly sub-optimal (minor to major positional/timing errors)l, due to human limitations. Thus matches that are merely difficult and not impossible are still winnable. We then just estimate how often this will likely occur given these restrictions.

 

[BunBun]

Haha, I know, I'm just trying to work the conversation towards establishing some sort of concrete term on which matchups should be judged.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Yeah, it's just that the difficulty translates to stocks, wins, and losses.


Just throwing this out there, determining a matchup by examining results by stocks is generally stupid.

it means its harder or easier yes. but why make something up.

why make up bs figures and think we are doing something? why say 45-55 means equal etc is losing x games out of 100. we really cannot back that up. we can't say on average the stock ratio will be 75-25. we can't say pikachu should lose to fox 59 percent of the time or that he has a 70 percent chance to lose.

based on our knowledge we can say well mario about this hard for roy, while simultaneously comparing that difficulty to mario vs donkey kong.

imo we don't have the means to use the the other methods unless we analyze some tournament data or conduct an experiment. false claims are dumb.

I just think its alot harder to translate difficulty into stocks or win percentages. we are setting ourselves up for inaccuracy and failure...again.

just my opinion, nothing more.


edit: maybe I just cannot see it. so if somebody can please explain how you can convert this stuff into wins losses stocks sets whatever and be accurate enough that we can stand by those figures as a whole.

 

[t3h Icy]

Updated:

Pikachu 35:65 Falco, Pikachu 35:65 Fox, Pikachu 40:60 Marth, Pikachu 35:65 Peach, Y.Link 45:55 Doc, Y.Link 70:30 Kirby, Y.Link 45:55 Luigi, Y.Link 50:50 Mario, Y.Link 60:40 Roy, Y.Link 45:55 Samus

To me, numbers are more or less your percentage to win each stock, but that's just my opinion.

 

[TheGoat]

it means its harder or easier yes. but why make something up.

why make up bs figures and think we are doing something? why say 45-55 means equal etc is losing x games out of 100. we really cannot back that up. we can't say on average the stock ratio will be 75-25. we can't say pikachu should lose to fox 59 percent of the time or that he has a 70 percent chance to lose.

based on our knowledge we can say well mario about this hard for roy, while simultaneously comparing that difficulty to mario vs donkey kong.

imo we don't have the means to use the the other methods unless we analyze some tournament data or conduct an experiment. false claims are dumb.

I just think its alot harder to translate difficulty into stocks or win percentages. we are setting ourselves up for inaccuracy and failure...again.

just my opinion, nothing more.


edit: maybe I just cannot see it. so if somebody can please explain how you can convert this stuff into wins losses stocks sets whatever and be accurate enough that we can stand by those figures as a whole.

I agree that it's impossible to get accurate matchup ratios by basing them off of stock and win ratios, and you are right, we don't have the means to do something real accurate with matchups. We don't have a good, well defined scientific method that works and is proven to do so, and the smash community most probably never will have such a method. It's that simple. Now, going about it for fun I am all for, but people who want to put more than a little match-up influence on the tier list, that annoys me, because it's ****ing mumbo jumbo.

Yes, it's accurate to say fox has the advantage over peach, and falco has the advantage over bowser.
But what about bowser vs kirby. 50:50? 60:40? 63:37? It goes on forever, is inherently far too generalized, and makes for a bad tier list making system.



I was just saying that yes, a matchup should indicate difficulty, and that it results in general patterns in wins/losses, not that examining wins and deaths is a good way to go about it.

why make up bs figures and think we are doing something?

lol, I agree.
Fine with people doing it for fun though, I like it too, but yeah...

 

[KAOSTAR]

your example of bowser vs kirby.

its no different than fox v falcon when it comes to rating difficulty. this is not a tier list. its about MUs in general. imo just use experiences from the best bowser/kirby players. them most likely being above average to high level would take care of the entire spectrum of simulated scenarios. if the values look ****ed up then maybe kirby players over estimate kirby's abilities. maybe everyone else underestimates them. but since its merely how hard that particular MU is, its gonna be hard to argue with the people that play it.

we shouldn't worry about the tier list in here. thats a complete separate project. if anything the tier list relates to the MU thread, definitely not the other way around.

for fun is fine. but no sense in making it at all if efforts aren't more than whee! it should actually mean something when we are done.

 

[TheGoat]

your example of bowser vs kirby.

its no different than fox v falcon when it comes to rating difficulty. this is not a tier list. its about MUs in general. imo just use experiences from the best bowser/kirby players. them most likely being above average to high level would take care of the entire spectrum of simulated scenarios. if the values look ****ed up then maybe kirby players over estimate kirby's abilities. maybe everyone else underestimates them. but since its merely how hard that particular MU is, its gonna be hard to argue with the people that play it.

we shouldn't worry about the tier list in here. thats a complete separate project. if anything the tier list relates to the MU thread, definitely not the other way around.

for fun is fine. but no sense in making it at all if efforts aren't more than whee! it should actually mean something when we are done.

Yeah sorry I kinda went off topic with my tier list rant.

Unfortunately though, there is no way to come up with 100% "correct" matchups because there is just no way. Not only are we never going to get complete consensus on specific numbers, but it's just, how do I explain it, like theoretical-ish. Matchups are only a concept. It's impossible getting a "right" number, because there is none.
Nevertheless, I'm all for a matchup list creation and discussion. It's just that it can't be argued that someone is right or wrong on specific numbers. One can argue that a certain character has the advantage over another character, but exact numbers are impossible. <<<Not debating against you here, just ranting about something related

Like you said about the bowser vs kirby; I agree, it's just that like every other matchup, there is no definite ratio

 

[KAOSTAR]

I think there is a definite ratio. but its beyond our comprehension.

but I think trying is great. just don't make it harder.

 

[Divinokage]

Yeah sorry I kinda went off topic with my tier list rant.

Unfortunately though, there is no way to come up with 100% "correct" matchups because there is just no way. Not only are we never going to get complete consensus on specific numbers, but it's just, how do I explain it, like theoretical-ish. Matchups are only a concept. It's impossible getting a "right" number, because there is none.
Nevertheless, I'm all for a matchup list creation and discussion. It's just that it can't be argued that someone is right or wrong on specific numbers. One can argue that a certain character has the advantage over another character, but exact numbers are impossible. <<<Not debating against you here, just ranting about something related

Like you said about the bowser vs kirby; I agree, it's just that like every other matchup, there is no definite ratio

Why is there no way of knowing a match-up 100% in the current meta-game? Of course it's possible.. are you saying there are no absolute truths in the game? I say it's BS. Sure the general playstyle changes and match-ups will change however, you can definitely define a match-up in the current present right now. And that means numbers will change too a little. So, ya the theorizing will be endless but that's the fun part. =P

 

[rhan]

Just a heads up. On the Kirby part of the chart it still says 35 when it goes against YLink.

 

[JPOBS]

Yeah, it's just that the difficulty translates to stocks, wins, and losses.

not necessarily.

You can still overcome something that is difficult, hence the reason why every matchup that is a slight disadvantage isnt automatically 100-0. If "difficulty translates to stocks, wins and loses" that would imply that any matchup that isnt even, is 100-0.

However, if you just take it to be a measure of difficulty to play and nothing more, then that is completely reasonable.

 

[BunBun]

Just a heads up. On the Kirby part of the chart it still says 35 when it goes against YLink.

That's how the chart is set up. Horizontal is that character's board's opinion, while the vertical are the other boards' opinions.

 

[t3h Icy]

Just a heads up. On the Kirby part of the chart it still says 35 when it goes against YLink.

Also, the left side's character represents the character board, while the top represents the opponent. In other words, Fox on the horizontal and Falco on the vertical is the Fox board's opinion on Falco, whereas Falco on the horizontal and Fox on the vertical is the Falco board's opinion on Fox. Chances are, there are mixed opinions about the same characters.

Kirby/Young Link happens to be one of those.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I dont think marth vs pika is only 60:40, but i dont have anything to back that up until tomorrow. I'll be back with a verdict sunday

 

[TheGoat]

Why is there no way of knowing a match-up 100% in the current meta-game? Of course it's possible.. are you saying there are no absolute truths in the game? I say it's BS. Sure the general playstyle changes and match-ups will change however, you can definitely define a match-up in the current present right now. And that means numbers will change too a little. So, ya the theorizing will be endless but that's the fun part. =P

I'm not saying there aren't absolute truths in the game, but let's take a minute to examine what a "match up" is. Pretty much how two different characters will fare against each other when both players are at the same level of gameplay. The matchup number is completely arbitrary, there is no accurate, scientific method for deducing a precise number.

It's not like studying, say, population patterns/numbers of a certain wild animal, or the staling of moves in melee. It's not an exact science. There is no way to know if a certain matchup will be 65:35, or 66:34, or 71:29

Indeed we can get general, and very useful estimations, like fox has a considerable advantage over peach. But the exact number is something else. And yes, theorizing matchups is very fun, I agree. I just want to get across the point that there is no absolute truth to it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I'm not saying there aren't absolute truths in the game, but let's take a minute to examine what a "match up" is. Pretty much how two different characters will fare against each other when both players are at the same level of gameplay. The matchup number is completely arbitrary, there is no accurate, scientific method for deducing a precise number.

It's not like studying, say, population patterns/numbers of a certain wild animal, or the staling of moves in melee. It's not an exact science. There is no way to know if a certain matchup will be 65:35, or 66:34, or 71:29

Indeed we can get general, and very useful estimations, like fox has a considerable advantage over peach. But the exact number is something else. And yes, theorizing matchups is very fun, I agree. I just want to get across the point that there is no absolute truth to it.

wat ?

 

[TheGoat]

wat ?

The "not an exact science" refers to matchup study, not move staling.

Move staling can be objectively and factually studied by running simple tests.

 

[JPOBS]

sveet how do u make posts with less than 10chars

 

[TheGoat]

sveet how do u make posts with less than 10chars

here .

edit: just mass spaces then put another letter. It shows up when you click Quote

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

ah i misread ur post goat. thought u said none of them were exact sciences

 

[john!]

It shows up when you click Quote

false .

 

[Divinokage]

I'm not saying there aren't absolute truths in the game, but let's take a minute to examine what a "match up" is. Pretty much how two different characters will fare against each other when both players are at the same level of gameplay. The matchup number is completely arbitrary, there is no accurate, scientific method for deducing a precise number.

It's not like studying, say, population patterns/numbers of a certain wild animal, or the staling of moves in melee. It's not an exact science. There is no way to know if a certain matchup will be 65:35, or 66:34, or 71:29

Indeed we can get general, and very useful estimations, like fox has a considerable advantage over peach. But the exact number is something else. And yes, theorizing matchups is very fun, I agree. I just want to get across the point that there is no absolute truth to it.

Well isn't that why we have been estimating match-ups ever since the game came out? Or like in every fighting game?

 

[rhan]

Kirby/Young Link happens to be one of those.

Ahhh okay never mind then.

 

[TheGoat]

Well isn't that why we have been estimating match-ups ever since the game came out? Or like in every fighting game?

Well I'm not saying there is something wrong with estimating matchups for ssbm, I'm just saying that there are no "correct" numbers, since the matchup system is inherently arbitrary.
Generally we can make accurate inferences, but the specific numbers are up to discretion; all this relates to matchups in the tier list. I don't want to get too off topic about that, but that is is why I'm vehemently against the idea that matchups should be the most important factor to consider when making a tier list.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

mostly we trust people's opinions on match-ups who share common thoughts on match-ups.

If someone said pika vs fox is 55:45 and marth is 50:50, we would say they are stupid/crazy/noob/ect and not listen to their views. Same thing happens all the time to varying degrees every time someone posts their opinions

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

LOL. Fox vs Kirby is 100-0: Fox.

LOLOL.

Too Hilarious.

 

[TemPesT-]

Kirby *****

 

[KAOSTAR]

mostly we trust people's opinions on match-ups who share common thoughts on match-ups.

If someone said pika vs fox is 55:45 and marth is 50:50, we would say they are stupid/crazy/noob/ect and not listen to their views. Same thing happens all the time to varying degrees every time someone posts their opinions

I trust people's opinions when they can back iit up with facts or solid reasoning and logic.

some people are given benefit of the doubt if they have proven to be knowledgeable or have a certain level of skill.

just because somebody agrees with me doesn't make their opinion valid.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

opinions are opinions, how do you validate them?

 

[Winston]

not necessarily.

You can still overcome something that is difficult, hence the reason why every matchup that is a slight disadvantage isnt automatically 100-0. If "difficulty translates to stocks, wins and loses" that would imply that any matchup that isnt even, is 100-0.

However, if you just take it to be a measure of difficulty to play and nothing more, then that is completely reasonable.

no, you can claim that the difficulty translates to average rate of exchange of stocks or average match win percent without it being 100-0.

"variance"

 

[Skler]

This literally means Kirby will win 55 times out of 100 against Link.
How does that make you feel? lol.

It makes me feel like I've been wronged, just horrible wronged. Link can run away from kirby and throw things, kirby can't even steal a useful projectile from him!

And it's ****ing kirby!

 

[Doc King]

The matchup between Marf and Fawx should be 55:45 or 60:40 in Marf's favor.