Match-Up Ratios You Disagree with the Most

[kingPiano]

Here's how this works:
1. Give the match-up(s) that you currently disagree with the most. (provide original analysis or link)

2. Provide either your detailed reasoning and analysis or a video(s)
If it's a video of a set makes sure it's evenly skilled players, and both had knowledge of the matchup and weren't falling for gimmicks or easy mistakes (DJ Nintendo vs Unknown552 is a bad example for instance)

3. Feel free to agree/disagree with others. But keep it about the match-up or at least related to the purpose of this thread.

I'm currently referencing both SmashWIki and Smashapedia, sometimes both of these sites disagree (to varying degrees). But you can of course use any Match-up reference you like from any site (incl. this one of course). No matter where you are pulling from provide a screen shot, link, or copy paste the original match-up opinion in your post (spoiler code it if it's long).

Smashapedia MU chart: http://supersmashbros.wikia.com/wiki/Character_matchup_(SSBM)
SmashWiki MU chart: http://www.ssbwiki.com/Character_matchup_(SSBM)

I have quite a few that I think are wrong but the most recent I've been thinking about and have seen a ton of evidence for is Peach - Ganon. Both SmashWiki and Smashapedia have this as a dead even match-up. To me it seems obviously stacked in Peach's favor as much as 70:30 or even 80:20. There have been so many examples I've seen that agree with my sentiment, here's one:

Ganon's usual damage, KB, and range advantages I feel are countered by pretty everything in Peach's arsenal especially her projectiles and ability to float guard Ganon's bad recovery so easily.


...

 

[Superspright]

Vwins and Armada are like the only two who can play this match-up well enough to make it look bad, plus being generally better than most Ganondorf players. I don't think is a fair comparison. It's 50/50ish.

 

[kingPiano]

Vwins and Armada are like the only two who can play this match-up well enough to make it look bad, plus being generally better than most Ganondorf players. I don't think is a fair comparison. It's 50/50ish.

I'm guessing you are a Ganon main?

In the set I posted I thought carefully about it; both Kage and Vwins are on the same skill with their characters and overall and know the MU equally (both have much experience with each opposing character). I've also seen almost every match where an equally skilled and knowledgeable Ganon and Peach player fight. It pretty much always ends with Peach winning.

The main problem for Ganon is that once he's off stage he's pretty much done. He has to face a barrage of turnips and float aerials, Peach on the other hand is able to easily get back to the stage pretty much every time. Ganon has to outright KO Peach.

There are many other problems Ganon has against Peach but the video pretty much explains them all in high detail at a high level, so I didn't bother with a redundant explanation.

If you care to give some actual reasons/analysis or provide a video I'm open to seeing why you think it's 50/50.

 

[Superspright]

Kage isn't the best example against Peach. I'd pick Rock Crock maybe. I haven't seen any recent videos though. Armada is an outlier, and Vwins is very good at the Gdorf matchup, and most Ganondorfs don't go crazy in-depth with it. They mainly focus on Falco, Fox, CF, and Marth I've noticed. Some have experience with Ice-climbers, and whatnot.

Also, that particular match is not a microcosm of the matchup. I promise you it's much closer to even than you think. There's hardly any videos out there. Vwins is an exceptional player. Kage is...kind of overrated in my opinion.

Ganondorf doesn't attract cream of the crop competitors unfortunately. Mainly guys smoking weed and drinking a lot. These aren't the kinds of people who you can reliably use as examples of the matchup. If we saw some top-level players grinding out Gdorf practice and still losing to Peaches then I'd be convinced of it. On paper it's 50/50. In real life it's probably slightly her favor.

 

[Bones0]

I disagree with the entire premise of mu ratios because most people don't even agree on what the ratios stand for, and even when they do, most characters do not have god-player representatives to demonstrate their capabilities. Most people would agree mu ratios should be based on top level play, but if there's never been a top level Link, then it's just gonna be a matter of massive speculation as to whether he has any good mus vs. the top tiers.

 

[kingPiano]

I disagree with the entire premise of mu ratios because most people don't even agree on what the ratios stand for, and even when they do, most characters do not have god-player representatives to demonstrate their capabilities. Most people would agree mu ratios should be based on top level play, but if there's never been a top level Link, then it's just gonna be a matter of massive speculation as to whether he has any good mus vs. the top tiers.

Hmm never heard this before, I'm actually interested to know what do they not agree on? To me it seems obvious it's the percentage or times a character can win (or has won) against another. I feel it's based on the whole rock/paper/scissors of each character's moves, tools, options, tech, etc which would play into how much more effort or skill the player with that disadvantaged character has to put in. I would hope it's also based heavily on the actual past sets that have been payed at high level and evolves with the meta.

For instance Ness's Up-b is utterly useless against meteor smashes; so against a A LOT of characters he's toast off the edge early, nothing he can do about it. The match-up ratio would reflect that because for him every meteor smash is basically an OP spike. It's not the be-all-end-all just like metacritic review scores for Games aren't to be taken as fact, but it gives a general idea of how hard the MU is going to be.

Also chain-grabs I feel are an indisputable aspect that heavily affects a match-up in an objective way.

 

[1MachGO]

IMO, the simplest method for analyzing MUs is to compare the punish games and neutral games of the characters in question. I also think qualitative description is better suited than highly theoretical ratios.

As for the smashwiki/smashpedia, most of those ratios are outdated garbage and no one who has been part of the scene for some time acknowledges them or respects them as a source of empirical information.

Honestly, its open season when it comes to MUs. Most people generally agree on certain concepts, such as Peach hard countering ICs, but you'll find a sore lack of consensus for most MUs.

 

[kingPiano]

IMO, the simplest method for analyzing MUs is to compare the punish games and neutral games of the characters in question. I also think qualitative description is better suited than highly theoretical ratios.

As for the smashwiki/smashpedia, most of those ratios are outdated garbage and no one who has been part of the scene for some time acknowledges them or respects them as a source of empirical information.

Honestly, its open season when it comes to MUs. Most people generally agree on certain concepts, such as Peach hard countering ICs, but you'll find a sore lack of consensus for most MUs.

Yes I take those site's MU ratios about as seriously as I do Metacritic scores, nobody is dumb enough to take them "as a source of empirical information". A lot I don't agree with, just using them as a jumping off point to discuss since at one time somehow those figures were agreed upon. And I do infact see people from all ranges of experience use those numbers quite a lot in discussions about match-ups. There are no other established aggregations of MUs aside from the threads for each individual character on this site (most are still in limbo or incomplete.)

The theoretical ratios pear down the detailed breakdown to a quick summary at a glance. It should be obvious that the number not be taken with absolute authority. It could also be interpreted as an overall record of actual equal skilled match win:loss ratio as well, but that is something that is hard to actually objectively figure out. Too many variables in actual practice. So usually it's more theoretical in comparing tools and options in both neutral and off stage in regards to each character's obvious "rock - paper - scissors" advantages/disadvantages they have on each other

 

[NINJAxKOALA]

Shiek / Marth is 80-20
Kappa

 

[Bones0]

Hmm never heard this before, I'm actually interested to know what do they not agree on? To me it seems obvious it's the percentage or times a character can win (or has won) against another. I feel it's based on the whole rock/paper/scissors of each character's moves, tools, options, tech, etc which would play into how much more effort or skill the player with that disadvantaged character has to put in. I would hope it's also based heavily on the actual past sets that have been payed at high level and evolves with the meta.

For instance Ness's Up-b is utterly useless against meteor smashes; so against a A LOT of characters he's toast off the edge early, nothing he can do about it. The match-up ratio would reflect that because for him every meteor smash is basically an OP spike. It's not the be-all-end-all just like metacritic review scores for Games aren't to be taken as fact, but it gives a general idea of how hard the MU is going to be.

Also chain-grabs I feel are an indisputable aspect that heavily affects a match-up in an objective way.

I agree that it seems obvious it should be based on win %, but I've seen many people express different sentiments. Beyond what the ratios mean, there is tons of ambiguity when it comes to what to base them off of in the first place. Even if we agree the ratio is win %, there aren't actually equally skilled players. Skill is not a simple, linear attribute that can be measured in that way. If we're using hypothetical players, what level should they be. Again, if we're basing ratios on a hypothetical god-level Link, the mu ratio is largely going to reflect how good people believe Link is, not how well he does in the mu relative to his other mus or relative to the opposing character's mus. Even if we shared the image of a god-level Link, do we assume he is godlike at all of the mus equally? Or should we include things like mu unfamiliarity into the equation. Because Yoshi is so uncommon, aMSa is always going to enjoy great advantages when it comes to familiarity because there's a million pro Foxes for every pro Yoshi.

Your Ness example is, like most Theory Bros. discussion, painfully simplistic. You can deduce Ness is bad because his up-B sucks vs. meteors, but it totally ignores even fundamental questions like "What if Ness is rarely forced to up-B?" Surely Mario's fair won't be a major impact on the match if the Ness is constantly DIing all of the hits into the upper corners of the stage and preserving his DJ. The same holds true for chain grabs. They are not affecting mus in any "objective" because it's totally subjective how strong the CG is, how often that character will get grabs, and whether the character would get similar punishes without the CG anyway. I always facepalm a little when I hear people talk about Sheik's CG on some of the cast because when you watch M2K or KK, they frequently end CGs early because autocombos from dthrow are already really good on everyone. The extra 15% or so from optimized CGs is certainly important, but whether it has any major impact on a mu is far from objective.


I should clarify that I'm not trying to kill this thread as I'm very interested in hearing people explain why they consider some mus better or worse than most people. I just don't think matchup ratios adds anything to these discussions other than to serve as a distraction.

 

[kingPiano]

I agree that it seems obvious it should be based on win %, but I've seen many people express different sentiments. Beyond what the ratios mean, there is tons of ambiguity when it comes to what to base them off of in the first place. Even if we agree the ratio is win %, there aren't actually equally skilled players. Skill is not a simple, linear attribute that can be measured in that way. If we're using hypothetical players, what level should they be. Again, if we're basing ratios on a hypothetical god-level Link, the mu ratio is largely going to reflect how good people believe Link is, not how well he does in the mu relative to his other mus or relative to the opposing character's mus. Even if we shared the image of a god-level Link, do we assume he is godlike at all of the mus equally? Or should we include things like mu unfamiliarity into the equation. Because Yoshi is so uncommon, aMSa is always going to enjoy great advantages when it comes to familiarity because there's a million pro Foxes for every pro Yoshi.

Your Ness example is, like most Theory Bros. discussion, painfully simplistic. You can deduce Ness is bad because his up-B sucks vs. meteors, but it totally ignores even fundamental questions like "What if Ness is rarely forced to up-B?" Surely Mario's fair won't be a major impact on the match if the Ness is constantly DIing all of the hits into the upper corners of the stage and preserving his DJ. The same holds true for chain grabs. They are not affecting mus in any "objective" because it's totally subjective how strong the CG is, how often that character will get grabs, and whether the character would get similar punishes without the CG anyway. I always facepalm a little when I hear people talk about Sheik's CG on some of the cast because when you watch M2K or KK, they frequently end CGs early because autocombos from dthrow are already really good on everyone. The extra 15% or so from optimized CGs is certainly important, but whether it has any major impact on a mu is far from objective.


I should clarify that I'm not trying to kill this thread as I'm very interested in hearing people explain why they consider some mus better or worse than most people. I just don't think matchup ratios adds anything to these discussions other than to serve as a distraction.

Nah I don't mind either way.

The thread has gone in a new direction, that happens frequently on this site so i'm used to it by now.

I feel like you take a completely cynical view of the term "match-up ratio". I don't see it as a distraction at all, it's more of a gateway that draws people in and leads into discussing opinions/analysis on match-ups. I keep using the analogy but it's very similar to a review score for games or anything else. All intelligent people realize that not everyone will agree with that score, but it gets people to engage and read the full review and discuss. I don't think that MU ratios are something to get derisive and elitist about, letting it bother you seems a bit close minded.

To be fair your counter argument about Ness is also very simplistic and heavily based on what seems to be a biased assumption that recovery does not matter at all in a MU, that somehow Ness players have TAS DI, and an amazing ability to not be knocked off stage that surpasses other characters.

A character as bad as Kirby can completely obliterate Ness coming back the ledge. It's almost impossible for him to avoid Kirby's multi-hit Dair meteor smash once it's out near or over the edge and it will send him plummeting and probably instantly eat his DJ between hits (95% of the time he's already used it). Or for instance Sheik's fair, Fox/Falco's Dsmash, Doc's Bair, etc on ness sends him off and below stage line and he just simply can be bopped out of his DJ. It's not about it being guaranteed every-time, it's about how easy it is to gimp him and how hard it is for him to avoid it. This is a huge factor in his match ups. If you want to still argue that point you can, but I don't think my opinion on that will be easily changed.

And yes I agree that the CG can range depending on match-up, i didn't state that outright but I figured it was implied. For instance Ganon's CG on Roy and the spacies is pretty brutal and very easy to execute even with great DI up to KO percents. While Pichu's CG on FFers is not guaranteed and can be hard to pull off. Still both I believe affect the matchup in an objective way but to varying degrees, it's something the opponent has to be aware of no matter who the player behind the character.

 

[Bobojack]

The thing is that MUps differ depending on the level of skill its played. For example: While Falco-CF seems stupidly unfair for CF, it is In CFs favour played on the highest humanly possible skill level. ( I tell you: The new generation or CF will win over Flaco for sure!)

Edit: What I wanted to say is that for a MU chart it would help the most to say what the 2 chars can do to each other and what they cannot handle by making clear how the MU is supposed to be played and how it is most of the time played in the wrong way.

 

[Spak]

On the topic of Ness, Ness is a very hard counter to Roy. I've personally never gone up against a good Ness in Melee, but I don't see why people would think Ness is really good against Roy.

 

[kingPiano]

On the topic of Ness, Ness is a very hard counter to Roy. I've personally never gone up against a good Ness in Melee, but I don't see why people would think Ness is really good against Roy.

Yea and the majority of people on the Ness boards even think that Ness is real bad against Roy. It's very odd that it's an 80:20 in Ness's favor on the MU chart....so wrong. How did that even happen.

My reasoning for Roy > Ness in the MU

Uh....cause Roy's got a huge sweeping sword that can cover pretty much any ledge guarding or neutral situation.

I don't understand the hard counter or even them as an equal match, it seem easily in Roy's favor. There are only 2 Ness's in my area 1 is not good at all and the other is competent. I have been able to beat the competent Ness without much trouble quite often.

He can be hard to combo with Roy, but Roy has his crazy good grab range that can snatch Ness out of all his aerials except Fair. And with Fair it's so easy to read since most of the time Ness's spam it since it's the only truly good approach. This means you can predict and counter on that move very often and it's safe. And then there is F-smash and Flare Blade which out-range everything Ness can do. Ness can't effectively edgeguard Roy either.

Anyways I'm down to hear your thoughts on why it's a hard counter I'm not super familiar with the matchup outside of the 2 Ness's I play locally. It's definitely a rare MU.

 

[Spak]

Anyways I'm down to hear your thoughts on why it's a hard counter I'm not super familiar with the matchup outside of the 2 Ness's I play locally. It's definitely a rare MU.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said about that MU, but was curious as to why people think that MU is good because all of the Nesses I've played against were either bad or in PM.

After thinking more about the MU, I would also like to add that his Dair would be completely useless as a kill move against Roy. That hitbox isn't at all disjointed and Roy's Up-B would hit Ness if he was in front or above Roy, so he would have to be on the opposite side of where Roy is facing. That meanins the Ness would risk not being able to recover after trying to kill Roy and has the possability of not recovering, either. Thanks for giving an informed opinion on the MU!

 

[-Philip Coast Philip-]

I disagree with the entire premise of mu ratios because most people don't even agree on what the ratios stand for, and even when they do, most characters do not have god-player representatives to demonstrate their capabilities. Most people would agree mu ratios should be based on top level play, but if there's never been a top level Link, then it's just gonna be a matter of massive speculation as to whether he has any good mus vs. the top tiers.

. . .

I should clarify that I'm not trying to kill this thread as I'm very interested in hearing people explain why they consider some mus better or worse than most people. I just don't think matchup ratios adds anything to these discussions other than to serve as a distraction.

Yeah, come on guys.

 

[CAUP]

Kirby Ganon should be at least 50:50

As for Peach Ganondorf, 90% of the matches I play are this matchup. I would say it is definitely 50:50. It is a very even matchup. Yes, Peach destroys Ganon's recovery but VERY character does that to Ganon. Very even matchup. Like REALLY even.

 

[Bobojack]

Kirby Ganon should be at least 50:50

As for Peach Ganondorf, 90% of the matches I play are this matchup. I would say it is definitely 50:50. It is a very even matchup. Yes, Peach destroys Ganon's recovery but VERY character does that to Ganon. Very even matchup. Like REALLY even.

Can you please explain why and use some arguments? I can also say: "I play peach everyday and I have to say that ganons options are way more limited than peachs. Its definetly in Peachs favor 70:30"

Problem is that statements like this dont help the discussion at all. You should list arguments (Pro/cons for each char, examples of matches where good(!) players played the MU, etc.)

 

[CAUP]

Arg. There's so much to say about an entire matchup though, especially one that you truly understand.

The two characters zone each other really well. Ganon with back airs and a lot of other stuff and peach with primarily turnips. Ganon can usually control the center stage using platforms but peach can combo Ganon really well. This is countered by how few hits Ganon needs to kill peach. Also Ganon can decently edge guard peach. The speed of the two characters is relatively even. I don't really care to explain more than that.