Melee Match-Up Chart (NTSC) [Update 008 - 09.09.28]

[yellowroy]

I thought there was one MLG that Ken won where he only played Fox the whole tournament.

does anyone else know about this? I want to see vids.

 

[Pink Reaper]

ThePinkReaperr (4:36:52 PM): did ken ever go all Fox at MLG?
cherubimonholy (4:37:01 PM): MLG SF 2005

 

[yellowroy]

ThePinkReaperr (4:36:52 PM): did ken ever go all Fox at MLG?
cherubimonholy (4:37:01 PM): MLG SF 2005

thanks very much.

 

[unknown522]

N64, how do you feel for numbers?

low tier fox n***a !!!

Fox is still broken in that game. Take falco and give him a SHDL.

 

[N64]

matchup number-wise?

it's probably 60-40 jiggs.

 

[-ACE-]

Take falco and give him a SHDL.

Uhh, I wouldn't be down for paying 49.95 for Falco dittos. lol

 

[JPOBS]

Fox is still broken in that game. Take falco and give him a SHDL.

i'd probably quit playing.

i main falco, but i already hate dittos, with a shdl he wud be the best in the game and i'd kill myself if i had to face a beast like tht

 

[Strong Badam]

except the metagame in smash 64 is completely different than melee, and fox's shdl isn't gamebreaking at all.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

and the game is like $15

 

[unknown522]

lol, he's not that broken comparatively, because the game itself is very broken, but fox is broken in that game though. DD camp, lasers, f-air spacing, and move -> death combo.

matchup number-wise?

it's probably 60-40 jiggs.

thanks.

I think it's worse for pika, but I understand 6-4

 

[-ACE-]

and the game is like $15

Lol. I bought the game new a while back.

 

[Nintendude]

I still say we stop worrying about ratios and just go to the 5 matchup categories.

and the game is like $15

Or you can get it for free on your computer and play online.

 

[Dark Hart]

Kage, have you looked at ganon's hitboxes?

No, I haven't looked at anything really.

Alright, just wondering

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

shh trade secrets

 

[x After Dawn x]

Or you can get it for free on your computer and play online.

lol this

 

[Strong Badam]

I still say we stop worrying about ratios and just go to the 5 matchup categories.

then 55-45 match-ups become flat-out advantage, and 95-5 matchups become just large advantage. :/

 

[KirbyKaze]

it would probably be better than the disputed

person 1: if sheik is willing to chain grab, needle camp, and never approach bowser, it's 10-0
person 2: no it's not, there's always a chance

>________>

you can substitute sheik vs bowser with pichu vs samus for roughly the same idea.

same applies for kirby vs fox, and many other matchups that are apparently winnable.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

If we were to use the five match-up categories, I think it would be better to count 55-45 match-ups as even. It's not like one character will be winning significantly more often than the other.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

actually i think 45-55 should be advantage. the point is to show which character has the advantage, whether or not it small or large.

 

[KAOSTAR]

so how much progress has this thing made?

*serious question*

 

[x After Dawn x]

actually i think 45-55 should be advantage. the point is to show which character has the advantage, whether or not it small or large.

Agreed, but I think you mean 55-45 lol

 

[Nintendude]

With 5 categories it goes like this:

55-45 = even
60-40 to 65-35 = advantage
70-30 and better = strong advantage

It really is so much better. Worrying about who has really slight advantages in stuff like Falco vs. Sheik is really impractical and it really is practically even. Differing playstyles kind of prevent matchup ratios to be set in stone and 5 categories helps reflect that by only caring about obvious advantages. And you also don't have to worry about just how badly Sheik ***** low tiers. They all get the same level of disadvantage provided it is bad enough, and that's more practical as well. Who cares if a **** matchup is 85-15 as opposed to 90-10? With 5 categories it is simplified and much easier to agree on. Besides, it's almost impossible to argue things like 85-15 vs. 90-10.

 

[Strong Badam]

idea: 2 different charts; one as it is currently and one with nintendude1189's method.

 

[unknown522]

I want to try that out as well.

I could try to make it in like 5 seconds.

 

[otg]

With 5 categories it goes like this:

55-45 = even
60-40 to 65-35 = advantage
70-30 and better = strong advantage

It really is so much better. Worrying about who has really slight advantages in stuff like Falco vs. Sheik is really impractical and it really is practically even. Differing playstyles kind of prevent matchup ratios to be set in stone and 5 categories helps reflect that by only caring about obvious advantages. And you also don't have to worry about just how badly Sheik ***** low tiers. They all get the same level of disadvantage provided it is bad enough, and that's more practical as well. Who cares if a **** matchup is 85-15 as opposed to 90-10? With 5 categories it is simplified and much easier to agree on. Besides, it's almost impossible to argue things like 85-15 vs. 90-10.

This makes a lot of sense, and I like the fact that it balances out Low Tier matchups to some degree. I feel like this would almost result in a more accurate indicator of the tiers.

 

[Nintendude]

I'm glad people are agreeing with me. I'm particularly curious to see what kind of tier list would arise using the character weighting formulas used for the SSB64 chart.

 

[idea]

I want to try that out as well.

I could try to make it in like 5 seconds.

yeah, do it. i've wanted to see what a less accurate chart would look like for a while, and this method is both really simple and lets us compare it to the 64 chart. more importantly, though, it's already thought out, and less effort required means it's more likely this one will actually be made.

 

[KAOSTAR]

With 5 categories it goes like this:

55-45 = even
60-40 to 65-35 = advantage
70-30 and better = strong advantage

It really is so much better. Worrying about who has really slight advantages in stuff like Falco vs. Sheik is really impractical and it really is practically even. Differing playstyles kind of prevent matchup ratios to be set in stone and 5 categories helps reflect that by only caring about obvious advantages. And you also don't have to worry about just how badly Sheik ***** low tiers. They all get the same level of disadvantage provided it is bad enough, and that's more practical as well. Who cares if a **** matchup is 85-15 as opposed to 90-10? With 5 categories it is simplified and much easier to agree on. Besides, it's almost impossible to argue things like 85-15 vs. 90-10.

yea, ur right. I dont know why it seemed to matter that little extra 5 percent.

hope this way works out so this thing gets done and the bickering can stop

 

[worldjem7]

Who cares if a **** matchup is 85-15 as opposed to 90-10? With 5 categories it is simplified and much easier to agree on. Besides, it's almost impossible to argue things like 85-15 vs. 90-10.

Then don't?

I only made everything out of 100 because I always heard people use numbers out of 100 whenever talking about match-ups. If you don't want to argue a whole 5-point difference then don't.

And if it's really irritating everyone that much, I can always just revert the numbers back to what they originally were in SF4 where it's out of 10 instead of 100. That would probably give the best of both worlds. More generalized form of measurement but, complex enough to have decent accuracy.

 

[x After Dawn x]

If you're gonna scrap this chart, at least make the next one both accurate enough so people don't bicker with small details, but precise enough so there's still some detail to it. Like, the SSB64 chart was based off colors that indicated big da, small da, even, small a, and big a. Only I think maybe there should be 3 different disadvantages / advantages instead of 2 so it's still pretty precise. But idk, do what you want, just let us know if you're gonna remove the current one or not.

 

[Pink Reaper]

A 5 scale chart really is the best. When you take it to 100 or even a 10 point scale all it creates is arguments over things like single point differences. Like honestly, how much more of a chance does a character with a 20-80 match up have over a character with a 15-85? When you have it as simple as Large Advantage, Advantage, Even, Disadvantage, Large Disadvantage you actually allow more freedom in the argument. A chart like this shouldn't be made overly complicated, it should just be a "This character loses to this character" kind of thing. Seriously, what does a 15-85 match up even mean? This character has a 15% chance of winning? No, it means, "This character is at a great disadvantage against this opponent" so just say it like that >_>

 

[x After Dawn x]

Yeah I agree. Also, saying "disadvantage" is better than just rounding a value off to single digit increments on a scale to 10, for obvious reasons that I'm not even going to bother explaining at this point lol.

 

[worldjem7]

This entire topic was brought up before and declined.

I'm not scrapping this chart, and changing the format shouldn't even be up for questioning.

I'd rather not degenerate the chart to generalizations because I find it extremely hard to take a chart seriously that says "oh X has an advantage over Y" because then I can ask "Well what advantage does X have over Y?" and then the person I'm asking either doesn't know or has to go into some long-winded explanation as to why the match-up is labeled as "advantage."

I feel numbers help explain things more than just "oh X has advantage" because the number implies that one character can do a certain amount of things over another character to a certain degree.

If you see a 10-0 Match-up you know right off the bat it's **** but if you see "large advantage" you have no idea what that means. It could either mean "this character barely passes to be labeled 'large advantage'" or it could mean "this character completely destroys the other."

The lowest I would go for dumbing down this chart is removing the decimals (meaning changing it from 100 to 10).

Otherwise, please continue on-topic discussion as normal.

Nintendude1189, if you want to PM me a more detailed explanation of the SSB64 format, I'm willing to take a look at it but, for now I'm sticking to numbers.

 

[unknown522]

^ I'd never want to scrap this. I just want to see how the other chart would look.

I wouldn't be able to take that chart seriously either.

Dunno about other people.

 

[pkmvodka]

Ken's reign didn't end until 2007. For over 2 years, even as Ken retired and M2K dominated the smash scene, the list had Fox and Falco placed in Top with Marth and Sheik placed in High.

What are you talking about?

I remember a tier list from 2003/2004 and it was basically sheik marth fox peach in top with falco, then they eventually dropped falco to high.

Marth has always been top tier for the past.. 5 years at least.


Also, don't talk about ken if you don't know anything about him. The part where you say he never used fox is BS, I raged.

 

[Nintendude]

I'd rather not degenerate the chart to generalizations because I find it extremely hard to take a chart seriously that says "oh X has an advantage over Y" because then I can ask "Well what advantage does X have over Y?" and then the person I'm asking either doesn't know or has to go into some long-winded explanation as to why the match-up is labeled as "advantage."

That makes no sense at all. In fact, it's EASIER to defend "X has an advantage over Y" than "X has a 60-40 matchup over Y" because the concept of a 60-40 matchup is extremely arbitrary, while the concept of an "advantage" is very easy to conceptualize. You can use then exact same facts to defend 60-40 and "advantage" only it is a lot easier to properly defend "advantage" than 60-40.

I feel numbers help explain things more than just "oh X has advantage" because the number implies that one character can do a certain amount of things over another character to a certain degree.

In theory, yes, you are right, but unfortunately it is too difficult to accurately get those numbers for more than half the cast. Almost any number with low tiers is a rough guess, while it would be a lot easier to debate about whether it is simply a disadvantage or a strong disadvantage.

If you see a 10-0 Match-up you know right off the bat it's **** but if you see "large advantage" you have no idea what that means. It could either mean "this character barely passes to be labeled 'large advantage'" or it could mean "this character completely destroys the other."

Why should we care just how badly a character loses once the matchup ratio is bad enough? The ratios method also falls apart at extreme numbers. Is it really right to say that a character has a 0% to 10% chance of beating another character, and is that even possible to defend convincingly?

The lowest I would go for dumbing down this chart is removing the decimals (meaning changing it from 100 to 10).

Otherwise, please continue on-topic discussion as normal.

Nintendude1189, if you want to PM me a more detailed explanation of the SSB64 format, I'm willing to take a look at it but, for now I'm sticking to numbers.

You really shouldn't interpret this as "dumbing down" the chart. You also shouldn't be taking this as an attack. The idea of 5 categories is you aim for practicality rather than perfection. We can't force you to change, as after all this is YOUR chart, but I think I've supported this with a convincing argument as well as an actual example of a success (smash 64).

 

[Strong Badam]

What are you talking about?

I remember a tier list from 2003/2004 and it was basically sheik marth fox peach in top with falco, then they eventually dropped falco to high.

Marth has always been top tier for the past.. 5 years at least.


Also, don't talk about ken if you don't know anything about him. The part where you say he never used fox is BS, I raged.

The tier list that came out in 2006 had Fox and Falco in Top, and Marth Sheik Peach in High. Captain Falcon was top of Mid.

 

[KevinM]

Kirby, Shiek isn't even Bowsers worst matchup, on paper it should be, but its not.

This is why a matchup chart is purely impossible and sorta dumb.

I don't mean to put you guys down, but whats the point of having a matchup chart for a game as complex as smash.

Where do you draw the line on what stage is most neutral to determine your matchup listings.

There are far to many variables and not enough knowledge.

 

[Strong Badam]

deal with it KevinM

 

[Kyu Puff]

How is ICs-Fox worse than Purin-Fox?