JPOBS
Smash Hero
+rep for that reference. i literally lol'd.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Match-Up Chart (Outdated); please refer to the new chart.
- Thread starter t3h Icy
- Start date
- Status
Rappster
Smash Ace
I believe that a matchup chart will be untenable because people are not willing to agree on how a matchup chart should be defined.
What is high level play? Best in the world? Best in my region? Mango v Hbox?
What does 70:30 mean? Ratio of matches won to matches lost? Ratio of stocks taken to stocks lost?
Where should matches be counted? Neutral stages? CP stages? Dreamland?
What’s more important? Theory-crafting? Empirical evidence?
I believe that a matchup chart defined similarly to the one I’m posting below would be the best way to create a reasonable, finishable Matchup Chart (though this is not the only way):
“A match up chart is a visual representation of matchups (1) between characters when both characters are played at a high skill level (2) under tournament conditions. Match-ups will be determined primarily by match results (3) and second by general consensus (4) “
(1) A matchup between characters x and y, for the purpose of this chart, will be defined as the ratio of number of stocks taken by character x compared to the stocks taken by character y. It will be scaled so that each number is out of 100. This is identical to the percent chance that character x or y will take the next stock. (If you have this, then you can also determine % chance of one character winning)
(2) "High skill level" should only include players who have placed in the top 8 of a large tournament (100+ entrants) within the past year.
(3) Only a small set of all total matches will be tallied here: recorded NTSC tournament matches, no more than a year old, between qualifying players.
(4) If and only if this data seems overly skewed (e.g. fox-sheik comes out to 70:30 in favor of sheik), then a general consensus can change it.
What is high level play? Best in the world? Best in my region? Mango v Hbox?
What does 70:30 mean? Ratio of matches won to matches lost? Ratio of stocks taken to stocks lost?
Where should matches be counted? Neutral stages? CP stages? Dreamland?
What’s more important? Theory-crafting? Empirical evidence?
I believe that a matchup chart defined similarly to the one I’m posting below would be the best way to create a reasonable, finishable Matchup Chart (though this is not the only way):
“A match up chart is a visual representation of matchups (1) between characters when both characters are played at a high skill level (2) under tournament conditions. Match-ups will be determined primarily by match results (3) and second by general consensus (4) “
(1) A matchup between characters x and y, for the purpose of this chart, will be defined as the ratio of number of stocks taken by character x compared to the stocks taken by character y. It will be scaled so that each number is out of 100. This is identical to the percent chance that character x or y will take the next stock. (If you have this, then you can also determine % chance of one character winning)
(2) "High skill level" should only include players who have placed in the top 8 of a large tournament (100+ entrants) within the past year.
(3) Only a small set of all total matches will be tallied here: recorded NTSC tournament matches, no more than a year old, between qualifying players.
(4) If and only if this data seems overly skewed (e.g. fox-sheik comes out to 70:30 in favor of sheik), then a general consensus can change it.
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
matchup chart should be like
on battlefield
how likely is <character> to beat <other character>
TOTAL number of games / 10 or 100 or whatever
not counting 4-stocks, 2-stocks, 1-stocks, etc.
nurgle.
'cuz like
winning by a lot
vs a close game
doesn't matter in bracket/pools/whatever
a win is a win
edit: battlefield, because it should be the only legal stage
on battlefield
how likely is <character> to beat <other character>
TOTAL number of games / 10 or 100 or whatever
not counting 4-stocks, 2-stocks, 1-stocks, etc.
nurgle.
'cuz like
winning by a lot
vs a close game
doesn't matter in bracket/pools/whatever
a win is a win
edit: battlefield, because it should be the only legal stage
otg
Smash Master
I agree with KK, and was thinking the same thing.
Good luck trying to convince everyone using BF as the standard tho
Good luck trying to convince everyone using BF as the standard tho
idea
Smash Master
+1 for battlefield being the most neutral neutral
and, it might still be worthwhile to distinguish between **** and just winning. like 3 stocks could be considered differently from 2 or less.
i forgot i don't care about this, but i'm going to click submit anyway now that the words are here
and, it might still be worthwhile to distinguish between **** and just winning. like 3 stocks could be considered differently from 2 or less.
i forgot i don't care about this, but i'm going to click submit anyway now that the words are here
-ShadowPhoenix-
Smash Bash
NAH cuz we're still waiting for the tier list >.>
x After Dawn x
Smash Master
try telling this to
john!
Smash Hero
"a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."
this is known as "stream of consciousness narrative" and has been employed by such literary giants as james joyce and j.d. salinger
all trolling aside
KAOSTAR
the Ascended One
I really don't even know what u mean by that. im perfectly ok with using KK's definition of a MU.
the problem was, and ive said at least 4 times, that nothing was ever defined. everyone had different interpretations of what those numbers meant. thats why I said stay with the adv system or define what the numbers mean.
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
I can't believe it. DK's matchup spread looks almost perfect!
Only changes I would say is something like -1 Jiggs with -2 Peach (whatever makes it clear that Peach is worse then Jiggs for DK) and.... -100 Falco.
In all seriousness, Falco should seriously be +3 vs DK. It's just as bad as Sheik vs Pichu.
Only changes I would say is something like -1 Jiggs with -2 Peach (whatever makes it clear that Peach is worse then Jiggs for DK) and.... -100 Falco.
In all seriousness, Falco should seriously be +3 vs DK. It's just as bad as Sheik vs Pichu.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
This thread is dead. Stop posting already.
None Shall Pass
Smash Apprentice
Imagine:
A thread full of intelligent discussion without any pointless, trivial, annoying bickering.
Sigh.
A thread full of intelligent discussion without any pointless, trivial, annoying bickering.
Sigh.
None Shall Pass
Smash Apprentice
I've been lurking this thread for quite some time now, and the semantic arguing has given me headaches.
Literally. Directly contribute to the advancing metagame, or get out. There's no point otherwise.
Fox vs. Falco would be nice. I need help with that matchup.
Literally. Directly contribute to the advancing metagame, or get out. There's no point otherwise.
Fox vs. Falco would be nice. I need help with that matchup.
Well there are mini mods like sveet who like acting knowledgeable. They dont contribute.. but the point for them is to act cool and get rep. People like ICG... I just cant read his posts, they dont make sense..
Lovage plays the matchup really well. He barely lost to zhu, did really well against try hard mango, and just doesnt fall for a lot of dumb stuff that good falcos do. He gets grabbed in his shield a lot, but that's better than getting shined. He also SDIs out of combos and stuff, and he looks like hell be able to consistently powershield soon. Falcos, watch out.
I dont really understand the matchup, but I know lovage does some things right.
Lovage plays the matchup really well. He barely lost to zhu, did really well against try hard mango, and just doesnt fall for a lot of dumb stuff that good falcos do. He gets grabbed in his shield a lot, but that's better than getting shined. He also SDIs out of combos and stuff, and he looks like hell be able to consistently powershield soon. Falcos, watch out.
I dont really understand the matchup, but I know lovage does some things right.
Rappster
Smash Ace
valid argument. I could live with this definition.
My primary qualm would be that we would have to expand definition of "high-level players" so that there are more eligible matches.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
haha im not a mini-mod. I just say my views. This thread is long dead and has been dead for over 100 pages. The chart is pretty accurate, not to mention match-up values are completely subjective anyways.
TheManaLord
Smash Hero
This thread failed when M2 Zelda was reversed. Just let the ****ing trolls win why don't you.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Both sides of the m2/zelda debate were trolls. Stfu already. It lost its comedy value literally a year ago.
Dark Hart
Rejected by Azua
Actually, starting the M2/Zelda debate was the troll, but Zelda wins like 60-40, honestly
john!
Smash Hero
No, Mewtwo clearly wins the matchup! Think about shadow ball spam, how can Zelda counter that?
Divinokage
Smash Legend
Both sides is always the same people too, spouting random ****. Love it. =P
Just like above.
KAOSTAR
the Ascended One
the ****ed up part was that I wasn't even trolling. I believe with all my heart, mind, and soul that m2 has a slight advantage in that MU. I was really only trying to give a more accurate insight into mewtwo's metà game.
@teh icy-+, -, = is too vague tho. u really aren't telling the reader very much at all. imo your advantage system was ****.
x After Dawn x
Smash Master
You clearly underestimate Zelda, she has Nayru's Love! What can Mewtwo do to that, besides powershield them back?
60-40 Zelda!
Dark Hart
Rejected by Azua
Shut up, Kage. Zelda *****
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
I don't like expanding to ****ty players just for completion purposes.
Dark Hart
Rejected by Azua
Shut up, KK, Zelda *****
x After Dawn x
Smash Master
Shut up mewtwo, zelda *****.
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
Zelda has at least a decent player in Cosmo so she'd be allowed so I don't know what you're complaining about Dark Hart...
Mewtwo has Taj so again he could be included.
My main qualm is characters like Pichu who do not have recent high level representation period. And are generally played by abysmal players that judge the difficulty of matchups off friendlies with people who are much worse than them, or much better than them (but then they say, "Oh I got 4-stocked but it's M2K so I think that I did 20% in a match indicates that Pichu vs Fox is like 6-4 for Fox advantage").
Apparently such a view is discriminatory but I don't see the point in including characters we know nothing about. Their numbers are probably going to be wrong anyway. And I'd rather not just half-*** their numbers or whatever just so the chart would be "complete".
In the MBR when I proposed the matchup chart idea of a tier list construction I fully supported the suggestion to limit the chart to like 12 or so characters. We actually voted the characters into viable / non-viable, where viable characters are basically the top end of mid tier and up. And non-viable is the bottom of mid tier and lower. Granted, I didn't define it to "games won out of <X> on <stage>" but even in ages past I never really cared about having every matchup accounted for.
Mewtwo has Taj so again he could be included.
My main qualm is characters like Pichu who do not have recent high level representation period. And are generally played by abysmal players that judge the difficulty of matchups off friendlies with people who are much worse than them, or much better than them (but then they say, "Oh I got 4-stocked but it's M2K so I think that I did 20% in a match indicates that Pichu vs Fox is like 6-4 for Fox advantage").
Apparently such a view is discriminatory but I don't see the point in including characters we know nothing about. Their numbers are probably going to be wrong anyway. And I'd rather not just half-*** their numbers or whatever just so the chart would be "complete".
In the MBR when I proposed the matchup chart idea of a tier list construction I fully supported the suggestion to limit the chart to like 12 or so characters. We actually voted the characters into viable / non-viable, where viable characters are basically the top end of mid tier and up. And non-viable is the bottom of mid tier and lower. Granted, I didn't define it to "games won out of <X> on <stage>" but even in ages past I never really cared about having every matchup accounted for.
Dark Hart
Rejected by Azua
That... is actually a good idea. We can work on the crappy characters another time.
Druggedfox
Smash Champion
Yeah, but then the fact that it's such a debatable thing kinda made the idea die.
Everyone is ridiculously biased simply by nature of their personal experiences, its unavoidable. Actually getting some sort of consistency is essentially impossible. The most valuable thing to come out of it would probably be the discussion, as, if it was intelligent, it would probably be a very complete and thorough look at any given matchup.
Everyone is ridiculously biased simply by nature of their personal experiences, its unavoidable. Actually getting some sort of consistency is essentially impossible. The most valuable thing to come out of it would probably be the discussion, as, if it was intelligent, it would probably be a very complete and thorough look at any given matchup.
The Good Doctor
Smash Champion
That was srs busness
Sveet, you let me down.
TheManaLord
Smash Hero
But it's plainly obvious that on a majority of the legal stages Zelda has an advantage.
KAOSTAR
the Ascended One
thats not even true. YS may be the only neutral zelda haas the advantage on. and thats a maybe. low platforms and low sides plus ceiling are good for throw and fair kills. plus on ys m2 has crazy teleport movement
Dark Hart
Rejected by Azua
imo FD is the only stage where M2 has an advantage, but I mean you're not going to listen to my reasoning anyway KAO so I'm not gonna bother.
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
Of course. Our other methods of making the tier list are purely objective and not at all riddled with ludicrous regional / experience / tournaments results bias.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the point where theory trumps tournament results.
- Status