Official Metaknight Discussion

[Sorto]

Or that the skill level isnt the same........... Regardless of the skill level total, ADHD definitely outplayed all of his opponents at pound 4 there is no question.

1. So you can outplay a bad matchup b/c of your skills? Then why ban MK.
2. How can you be certain the matchup isn't in Diddys favor? Then why ban MK.
3. How can you be certain of any matchup ratios, if it seems that players skill means more (Ally also did well with the same ratio issue as ADHD) ? Then why ban MK. hah
4. Are you saying that ADHD and ALLY are SOOO much better then every other player?
5. Logic an Olimar player, placed 7th. That matchup ratio is currently a 60:40 in Mks favor ofcourse (65:35 on Olimar boards). I can do the math for you to show you his odds if youd like.
*I only used 5 matches, which is a 32 single elimination tourny. I Could up it to make it closer to a 200 double elimination tourny if ud like.

 

[loki15]

Yes it does..............................................

I'm not quite sure how we got this off topic, but might as well continue. A 60-40 matchup should mean 60%-40%. Should. But these ratings are far more arbitrary than that. Which is why they're given titles such as slight disadvantage, counter, and heavy counter. Because they're arbitrary. And it's obvious to see that by Sorto's math. And I think the DDD: DK example shows it quite well. As well as the IC: Ganon ratio. Those matchups are next to unwinnable, but still give Ganon and DK between a 10 and 20% chance of winning.

 

[Chuee]

IC v Ganon is at 100-0
Get yo facts straight boi.

 

[RDK]

I'm not quite sure how we got this off topic, but might as well continue. A 60-40 matchup should mean 60%-40%. Should. But these ratings are far more arbitrary than that. Which is why they're given titles such as slight disadvantage, counter, and heavy counter. Because they're arbitrary. And it's obvious to see that by Sorto's math. And I think the DDD: DK example shows it quite well. As well as the IC: Ganon ratio. Those matchups are next to unwinnable, but still give Ganon and DK between a 10 and 20% chance of winning.

At high levels of play the DK / D3 and IC / Ganon matchups are virtually unwinnable. Nobody in their right mind would willfully pick DK in a tournament match knowing that their opponent could CP with D3.

IC v Ganon is at 100-0
Get yo facts straight boi.

There is no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That's why we use the term virtually unwinnable.

 

[Dragoomba]

If this discussion keeps getting brought up over and over again, that reason alone should say something.

 

[CRASHiC]

Yo guys, don't even pay attention to Smash matchups because most of them aren't even true matchup numbers. There is NO SUCH THING as a 55/45 matchup. (part of the reason SRK laughs at us, among many other thing). 2ndly, in Smash we consider 6-4 a counter. 7-3 in all other communities in considered a counter.

So, change all 55/45 matchups to 6/4, all 7-3 to 8-2, and anything higher to 9-1. Now you have a more accurate percentage and can actually look at matchups and compare them to other communities.

 

[Dark.Pch]

1. So you can outplay a bad matchup b/c of your skills? Then why ban MK.
Yes and the fact that the person who has the advantage in the match up does not know how to play it it gets annoyed playing it. When when you are annyoed/emo, you can't play correct
2. How can you be certain the matchup isn't in Diddys favor? Then why ban MK.
When meta players finally learn how to fight diddy and then apply it to thier own skill level, then we can talk about that
3. How can you be certain of any matchup ratios, if it seems that players skill means more (Ally also did well with the same ratio issue as ADHD) ? Then why ban MK. hah
Learn the match up to a full extend, then apply it to the best players between those 2 characters
4. Are you saying that ADHD and ALLY are SOOO much better then every other player?
idk........is he?
5. Logic an Olimar player, placed 7th. That matchup ratio is currently a 60:40 in Mks favor ofcourse (65:35 on Olimar boards). I can do the math for you to show you his odds if youd like.
*I only used 5 matches, which is a 32 single elimination tourny. I Could up it to make it closer to a 200 double elimination tourny if ud like.

People not knowing thier matchs ups fully and the options they have in them. Same time as I said before. People get annoyed playing them sometimes.

 

[UltiMario]

There is no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That's why we use the term virtually unwinnable.

99-1 then?

 

[Kewkky]

Yo guys, don't even pay attention to Smash matchups because most of them aren't even true matchup numbers. There is NO SUCH THING as a 55/45 matchup. (part of the reason SRK laughs at us, among many other thing). 2ndly, in Smash we consider 6-4 a counter. 7-3 in all other communities in considered a counter.

So, change all 55/45 matchups to 6/4, all 7-3 to 8-2, and anything higher to 9-1. Now you have a more accurate percentage and can actually look at matchups and compare them to other communities.

Yessssss. Last time I suggested this, people went all like "Oh, but Smash is such a different game, we need those numbers if we want to be accurate!"... We never even use 75:25+, why NOT roll up the numbers? If people really want to say "MK is the same as Sagat in SF4", then roll up the numbers and stop with the "we need X5:Y5 ratios".

... Which is why people just say advantage, even and disadvantage outside of the character-specific boards instead of bringing up fluctuating arbitrary numbers.

 

[CRASHiC]

People not knowing thier matchs ups fully and the options they have in them. Same time as I said before. People get annoyed playing them sometimes.

You mean like when people play ADHD?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

If this discussion keeps getting brought up over and over again, that reason alone should say something.

It says that it's a highly debated topic. Just because a topic is debated frequently over a long period of time does not show anything about what the outcome "should" be.

 

[GreenFox]

Its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where an IC player lost to Ganon

 

[Sorto]

Yo guys, don't even pay attention to Smash matchups because most of them aren't even true matchup numbers. There is NO SUCH THING as a 55/45 matchup. (part of the reason SRK laughs at us, among many other thing). 2ndly, in Smash we consider 6-4 a counter. 7-3 in all other communities in considered a counter.

So, change all 55/45 matchups to 6/4, all 7-3 to 8-2, and anything higher to 9-1. Now you have a more accurate percentage and can actually look at matchups and compare them to other communities.

I find this useless.

6-4: Is what? Wins 6 games out of 10 verses 4 games out of 10. That just means 60% to 40%. That percentage is huge. For every 2 matches you win, your opponent should win 3. Best of 5, means you should lose. It just math my frend. In the Finals, thats a counter.
7-3: 70% to 30%? Thats insanely huge. Its more then double. In a best of 3 your opponent wins 2.33 games for every 1 you win. At this rate you cant even win a best of 3 unless your lucky. And forget about winning a best 5, this is hard counter, not just a counter.

Honestly, from a mathematical point of view, if skills is the largest determing factor, then the ratios for matchups should be very very close.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where an IC player lost to Ganon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpW1DntBaJY

 

[Flayl]

Top MKs: M2K, Tyrant, Dojo, Shadow, Ksizzle, Anti, DSF, Judge, Seibrik

From October 1st to January 31st:

Anti
- 3rd out of 39 at Gauntlet 10-03-09, lost to Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 3rd out of 53 at DAPHNE I, lost to Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 4th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Mew2King (MK) and Meep (IC)
- 1st out of 34 at Bum Presents: The Gamers, 0 sets lost
- 3rd out of 74 at PolyBrawl 11.28, can't find any brackets - outplaced by Ally (Snake) and ADHD (Diddy)

Dojo
- 1st out of 71 at HOBO 19, can't find any brackets
- 1st out of 71 at Phase 2, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 39 at Phase 3, can't find any brackets
- 4th out of 50 at HOBO 21, lost to Hylian (IC/G&W) and Razer (Snake)
- 2nd out of 46 at Final Smash 8, lost to Razer (Snake) twice

DSF
- 1st out of 43 at CGC XII, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 49 at CGC @ SFSU 13, 0 sets lost
- 3rd out of 120 at R3, lost to DEHF (Falco) and Tyrant (MK)
- 1st out of 109 (split with DSF) at UCSD Winter Game Fest V, can't find any brackets
- 3rd out of 70 at SCSA West Coast Circuit #5, lost to DEHF (Falco) and Tyrant (MK)

Judge
- 2nd out of 61 at Brawl Bootcamp Lvl. 2, lost to M2K (MK) twice
- 2nd out of 31 at LoLiS 4, lost to Mew2King (MK) twice
- 2nd out of 30 at Kuntasm, lost to Mew2King (MK) twice
- 1st out of 42 at LoLiS 5, lost to Anther (Pikachu) once
- 5th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to Shadow (MK) and Ksizzle (Lucario)

Ksizzle
- 7th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) and Atomsk (???)
- 2nd out of 60 at Crank That Kosha Boy!, lost to Ally (Snake) twice
- 2nd out of 24 at Daisho's Tournament 11/21/09, can't find any brackets - lost to Cable (DK)
- 4th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to ADHD (Diddy) and Ally (Snake)

Mew2King
- 1st out of 36 at LoLiS 2, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 61 at Brawl Bootcamp Lvl2, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) twice
- 1st out of 39 at lain's Lollapalooza, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 31 at LoLiS4, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 30 at Kuntasm, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 89 at Winterfest, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 45 at Wiegraf Too Good, lost to ADHD (Diddy) twice
- 1st out of 29 at Wait, AGAIN?!, 0 sets lost
- 2nd out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to ADHD (Diddy) twice
- 1st out of 30 at Delta Upsilon II, 0 sets lost

Seibrik

Shadow
- 4th out of 60 at Crank That Kosha Boy!, lost to Meep (IC) and ADHD (Diddy)
- 2nd out of 45 at KTAR, lost 2x to Ally (Snake)
- 2nd out of 25 at Powerplay Gaming Tournament, lost to Atomsk (???) and Ally (Snake)
- 5th out of 190 at Pound 4, lost to Mew2King (MK) and Ally (Snake)

Tyrant
- 3rd out of 43 at CGC XII, lost to DSF (MK) and michealHAZE (Marth)
- 5th out of 100 at Viridian City 6, lost to Ally (Snake) and Meep (IC)
- 2nd out of 120 at R3, lost 2x to DEHF (Falco)
- 1st out of 18 at The BR Act: Program 1, 0 sets lost
- 1st out of 109 (split with DSF) at UCSD Winter Game Fest V, can't find any brackets
- 2nd out of 70 at SCSA West Coast Circuit #5, lost to DEHF (Falco) twice

If you have any info on set losses let me know.

Updated with Anti and Ksizzle

 

[Chuee]

<.<
10meleelinks

 

[Kewkky]

Its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where an IC player lost to Ganon

This is a horrible argument.


"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Falco player lost to Zelda"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Kirby player lost to Falcon"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Snake player lost to Jiggly"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a G&W player lost to Fox"


Make sure they're not friendlies, they've got to be tourney videos! In fact, give me ANY kind of video where top-players of both characters are playing, that counter my arguments!

 

[Ganonsburg]

Inui is completely Correct.
- Matchup ratio are misrepresentative!
- If skill depends more on the player, which is what most people believe, then the values should be closer.
- If a tournament of players of completely even skill existed. And one of its players, lets say played Diddy and only had to face MKs, which is matchup of about 55:45. Now for simplicity, lets make the 55:45, the chance of winning the entire set, not per match or anything like that. Now lets say the Diddy only had to win five sets to win first place. That means his chances of winning are .45^5, correct. Assuming the players are all even skilled and the matchup truly is 55:45.

.45^5 = 0.0184528125, which is less then 2%.

Less then 2%? I guess ADHD is a pretty lucky player most of the time.
My point is, MATCHUP RATIOS ARE VERY VERY WRONG!!!!

You forgot to mention the MK's chances of success, which are .05033, or 5%. That means the Diddy's chances of winning are roughly 40% that of the MK's (it's closer to 37% when you use non-rounded or truncated numbers). His chances of winning any given match is 81% that of Metaknight's chances.

But you're assuming that these people are going to win them all in a row. His chances of winning are greater when you consider that he probably won't win them all in a row. See: Binomial Probability.

Take that as you will.

 

[Judo777]

1. So you can outplay a bad matchup b/c of your skills? Then why ban MK.
2. How can you be certain the matchup isn't in Diddys favor? Then why ban MK.
3. How can you be certain of any matchup ratios, if it seems that players skill means more (Ally also did well with the same ratio issue as ADHD) ? Then why ban MK. hah
4. Are you saying that ADHD and ALLY are SOOO much better then every other player?
5. Logic an Olimar player, placed 7th. That matchup ratio is currently a 60:40 in Mks favor ofcourse (65:35 on Olimar boards). I can do the math for you to show you his odds if youd like.
*I only used 5 matches, which is a 32 single elimination tourny. I Could up it to make it closer to a 200 double elimination tourny if ud like.

Yes you can outplay MK and win. So as long as u play alot better than everyone else at the tournament u should have no problems but at high levels of play you cant always play alot better than everyone else.

I do believe that there is a slight difference in skill among those 3 players over most everyone else which is why they always place so high every where they play (with some excpetions of course).

Logic is a great player and idc if u can show me win percentages or not.

And the metagame is getting very overcentralized thats why there were tons of mk in the top slots at pound 4. I know im using pound 4 refrences alot but its not the only case infact OS has a thread proving that mks are genrally placing higher all over the country if u wanna see the numbers.

 

[Chuee]

This is a horrible argument.


"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Falco player lost to Zelda"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Kirby player lost to Falcon"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a Snake player lost to Jiggly"

"its 100-0 give me a link of a tournament where a G&W player lost to Fox"


Make sure they're not friendlies, they've got to be tourney videos! In fact, give me ANY kind of video where top-players of both characters are playing, that counter my arguments!

Ganon v IC is probably one of the worst MU's in the game. If it's not 100-0 then its 99-1.

 

[Sorto]

You forgot to mention the MK's chances of success, which are .05033, or 5%. That means the Diddy's chances of winning are roughly 40% that of the MK's (it's closer to 37% when you use non-rounded or truncated numbers). His chances of winning any given match is 81% that of Metaknight's chances.

But you're assuming that these people are going to win them all in a row. His chances of winning are greater when you consider that he probably won't win them all in a row. See: Binomial Probability.

Take that as you will.

All that you said is true. And for argument sake, and to disregard the Binomial probability issues, assume it to be single elimnation. But look at what your data says, any particular MK has a 2.7274975, almost 3 times the chance of a particular diddy of winning my proposed 5 match, 32 player theoretical tourny. Yet a DIDDY came in first at Pound 4, which had 200 players and he didnt lose even one set. And a Snake came in 3rd. Both with relatively similar odds of obtaining there position. This is to show the fallacys of matchup ratios. Do you not agree that matchup ratios are somewhat scewed and overall wrong?

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

A 60-40 match-up on the boards does not mean a 60% to 40% win ratio.

Then obviously the boards should stop referring to it as 60-40.

It baffles me as to why people do this.

 

[loki15]

Sorry for being off topic there, I just had to make my point, and it looks like it has quite the support haha

At a competitive level, 60-40 matchup sets will almost always go to the 60 character. Maybe not quite nonviable, but as a whole, that's essentially true. No, MetaKnight does not have an overwhelming good matchup against every single character in the game. However, he does stand a strong chance of winning 3 in 5 matches against 30 characters of 38. That's about 30 characters that become (almost) nonviable because they have a small chance of winning against one character.

30/38 > 2/3

I wanna say that 2/3 was a magic number for determing ban worthiness...

Then obviously the boards should stop referring to it as 60-40.

I wholeheartedly agree

 

[Kewkky]

Ganon v IC is probably one of the worst MU's in the game. If it's not 100-0 then its 99-1.

If it truly was 100-0, then that would mean the ICs player can just spam an attack and win. Truth is, IC's can't get careless or else Ganon might catch them offguard and take a stock off of them. Hell, at a 100-0 MU, losing a stock is impossible: it means that the opponent is going to completely destroy you, and you have NO chance of winning whatsoever, not even the ability to remove a stock off of that character (yes, the 0 can hurt the 100, but not kill. If 0 can take a stock off of 100, then that means that the 0 can take 3 stocks as well if both play the same way during the match).


100-0 means that the 100 CAN'T lose.

 

[Sorto]

Yes you can outplay MK and win. So as long as u play alot better than everyone else at the tournament u should have no problems but at high levels of play you cant always play alot better than everyone else.

I do believe that there is a slight difference in skill among those 3 players over most everyone else which is why they always place so high every where they play (with some excpetions of course).

Logic is a great player and idc if u can show me win percentages or not.

And the metagame is getting very overcentralized thats why there were tons of mk in the top slots at pound 4. I know im using pound 4 refrences alot but its not the only case infact OS has a thread proving that mks are genrally placing higher all over the country if u wanna see the numbers.

He also probably the most played character. And hes the best character. Why shouldnt he have more wins? Does that make him banworthy? Is he broken? Does he make a majority of the cast unplayable (19 or more)? Does he give the player an UNFAIR advantage? Whats the most used team in MvC2, what are there percents, are they banworthy? Its the same 3 character team for them everywhere!!!

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Inui is completely Correct.
- Matchup ratio are misrepresentative!
- If skill depends more on the player, which is what most people believe, then the values should be closer.
- If a tournament of players of completely even skill existed. And one of its players, lets say played Diddy and only had to face MKs, which is matchup of about 55:45. Now for simplicity, lets make the 55:45, the chance of winning the entire set, not per match or anything like that. Now lets say the Diddy only had to win five sets to win first place. That means his chances of winning are .45^5, correct. Assuming the players are all even skilled and the matchup truly is 55:45.

.45^5 = 0.0184528125, which is less then 2%.

Less then 2%? I guess ADHD is a pretty lucky player most of the time.
My point is, MATCHUP RATIOS ARE VERY VERY WRONG!!!!

Fail Math is Fail.

Using your "formula" MK has 0.0503284375 which is less than 6% of winning.

Better formula - (MU%+.5)^X+.5
This means that Diddy will have a 35% chance to win assuming you only have to win 3 out of 5. But also you have to realize, the MU is often considered to be 50:50.

Then you have to take into consideration player skill and MU knowledge. This is where Diddy shines, very few people know the MU as much as they should and Dekar even says that they hold back MU info. So let's say that since M2K didn't know the MU that well it was 45:55 for ADHD b/c M2K had very little Diddy practice and ADHD had all MK's before facing M2K. This will mean that ADHD would have had more along the lines of 65% chance of winning it, but this is all based on player skill and not the MU, but as of now, it's a 50:50 MU so it will be evenly won.

 

[Dark.Pch]

50-50= Even
60-40= Slight advantage/disadvantage
70-30= Solid Advantage/disadvantage
80-20= Major advantage

Just do it this way. Whats so hard about this?

 

[Chuee]

60-40 MU's do not almost always go to the 60 side.

 

[Dark.Pch]

Thats why it is important to know the match ups fully instead of just knowing your option with your main, being highly skilled and think you can pwn anyone without know how to fight the enemy.

 

[Sorto]

Fail Math is Fail.

Using your "formula" MK has 0.0503284375 which is less than 6% of winning.

Better formula - (MU%+.5)^X+.5
This means that Diddy will have a 35% chance to win assuming you only have to win 3 out of 5. But also you have to realize, the MU is often considered to be 50:50.

1. I assumed it to be 55:45, since every actual matchup chart has it written that way.
2. Using my formula, you do get that any one particular MK has a 0.0503284375 chance to win. Thats still about 2.7 times any diddys chance of winning. And thats for only 5 sets, a 32 player tourny, single elimation. At double elimation, it would be a 16 player tourny, if you assume the diddy didnt lose. ADHD didnt lose one set in a 200 player tournament! The more matches, the higher chances the particular mk wins as compared to the diddy.
3. I used the 55:45 as the chance of winning the entire set. Since I feel it more clearly represents that percent, than any particular one match.
4. MK has almost 3 times the chances of winning, yet he didnt. Matchup percents could be wrong. That is my point! The same kind of logic works for snake.
5. Snake as I said had the same issue. But in a large tourny, a 5-10% percent change in a matchup ratio could change the chances of placing high a larger amount. Thats why I feel a 60-40 match up is pretty bad and people just give it to there character like its nothing, thinking it means ur disadvantage is only very small, yet there character will still consistently place highly.
*THE FACT THAT MATCHUP RATIOS ARE VERY VERY WRONG IS MY POINT!

 

[CRASHiC]

Honestly, from a mathematical point of view, if skills is the largest determing factor, then the ratios for matchups should be very very close.

No, you have it backwords. If skill is the largest determining factor, then the percent gaps should be okay being large. Think of it like this, if skill level is worth double what a matchup ratio is worth in terms of determining the outcome, it would be something like

M x 2S=O

to put it very simply and bluntly. Of course many, many other things go into account.

 

[Sorto]

No, you have it backwords. If skill is the largest determining factor, then the percent gaps should be okay being large. Think of it like this, if skill level is worth double what a matchup ratio is worth in terms of determining the outcome, it would be something like

M x 2S=O

to put it very simply and bluntly. Of course many, many other things go into account.

I always assumed that match-up charts assumed top players to be at the SAME level. So thus in theory, if there levels were the same, even a small disadvantage could tip it greatly in there favor. Look at a 55:45 matchup. 55/45= 1.22. The 55 player has a 22% greater chance of winning then the 45 player. I would play those odds all day!

 

[CRASHiC]

All I can say is that these numbers are from traditional communities where matchups are more likely to be one by the more skilled player than the one in the better matchup than in Smash. Here we have Taj and Gimpyfish and think he's like WOW but neither of them can compare to a host of Zangeif players in SF2:Turbo who have to deal with basically every matchup unwinnable and STILL place incredibly high, even when you aren't considering the fact that they are using a horrible charecter. So the numbers don't really assume as much as you make it out to be.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

1. I assumed it to be 55:45, since every actual matchup chart has it written that way.
2. Using my formula, you do get that any one particular MK has a 0.0503284375 chance to win. Thats still about 2.7 times any diddys chance of winning. And thats for only 5 sets, a 32 player tourny, single elimation. At double elimation, it would be a 16 player tourny, if you assume the diddy didnt lose. ADHD didnt lose one set in a 200 player tournament! The more matches, the higher chances the particular mk wins as compared to the diddy.
3. I used the 55:45 as the chance of winning the entire set. Since I feel it more clearly represents that percent, than any particular one match.
4. MK has almost 3 times the chances of winning, yet he didnt. Matchup percents could be wrong. That is my point! The same kind of logic works for snake.
5. Snake as I said had the same issue. But in a large tourny, a 5-10% percent change in a matchup ratio could change the chances of placing high a larger amount. Thats why I feel a 60-40 match up is pretty bad and people just give it to there character like its nothing, thinking it means ur disadvantage is only very small, yet there character will still consistently place highly.
*THE FACT THAT MATCHUP RATIOS ARE VERY VERY WRONG IS MY POINT!

You still used your fail math, use my formula instead. Also, you forget to take Stage CP into consideration which can change a MU ratio a lot (eg. MK on RC)

We're also assuming it to be one match with the ratio. Using your logic, b/c of the properties of exponets, the ratio will never reflect the chance to win a set. But yes, I would play those numbers all day. BTW Proban

 

[loki15]

So...
Does this provide support for/against the ban?
It seems like this has degenerated into a discussion on the accuracy of matchup ratios. I don't disagree that this needs to be discussed, but it needs to be applied to whether MK in the current metagame is dominant enough to warrant a ban.

 

[Inui]

1. So you can outplay a bad matchup b/c of your skills? Then why ban MK.
2. How can you be certain the matchup isn't in Diddys favor? Then why ban MK.
3. How can you be certain of any matchup ratios, if it seems that players skill means more (Ally also did well with the same ratio issue as ADHD) ? Then why ban MK. hah
4. Are you saying that ADHD and ALLY are SOOO much better then every other player?
5. Logic an Olimar player, placed 7th. That matchup ratio is currently a 60:40 in Mks favor ofcourse (65:35 on Olimar boards). I can do the math for you to show you his odds if youd like.
*I only used 5 matches, which is a 32 single elimination tourny. I Could up it to make it closer to a 200 double elimination tourny if ud like.

I find this useless.

6-4: Is what? Wins 6 games out of 10 verses 4 games out of 10. That just means 60% to 40%. That percentage is huge. For every 2 matches you win, your opponent should win 3. Best of 5, means you should lose. It just math my frend. In the Finals, thats a counter.
7-3: 70% to 30%? Thats insanely huge. Its more then double. In a best of 3 your opponent wins 2.33 games for every 1 you win. At this rate you cant even win a best of 3 unless your lucky. And forget about winning a best 5, this is hard counter, not just a counter.

Honestly, from a mathematical point of view, if skills is the largest determing factor, then the ratios for matchups should be very very close.

Hey, good posts again.

Sorry for being off topic there, I just had to make my point, and it looks like it has quite the support haha

At a competitive level, 60-40 matchup sets will almost always go to the 60 character. Maybe not quite nonviable, but as a whole, that's essentially true. No, MetaKnight does not have an overwhelming good matchup against every single character in the game. However, he does stand a strong chance of winning 3 in 5 matches against 30 characters of 38. That's about 30 characters that become (almost) nonviable because they have a small chance of winning against one character.

30/38 > 2/3

I wanna say that 2/3 was a magic number for determing ban worthiness...


I wholeheartedly agree

Fail.

Wario, Falco, ICs, Snake, Dedede, Marth, Game and Watch, and other good characters completely 100% negate mid/low tiers as well. I can't name a single mid/low tier where I believe MK is even their worst match-up, since MK doesn't have a 0 to death CG, infinite, projectile, etc. The other characters shut down low tiers even better. What do they do to get in against Falco? How do they avoid being grabbed by ICs? Etc.

 

[Chuee]

I think mk is Zelda's worst MU. I don't really know of any others.

 

[Ganonsburg]

You still used your fail math, use my formula instead. Also, you forget to take Stage CP into consideration which can change a MU ratio a lot (eg. MK on RC)

We're also assuming it to be one match with the ratio. Using your logic, b/c of the properties of exponets, the ratio will never reflect the chance to win a set. But yes, I would play those numbers all day. BTW Proban

The only thing he failed at was not giving a decent idea of how the MK would do. Your formula was just pulled out of nowhere with no explanation as to why you use it. Your formula doesn't even give a good idea. At least his shows a portion of the binomial probability and gives you a decent idea of what's happening.

All that you said is true. And for argument sake, and to disregard the Binomial probability issues, assume it to be single elimnation. But look at what your data says, any particular MK has a 2.7274975, almost 3 times the chance of a particular diddy of winning my proposed 5 match, 32 player theoretical tourny. Yet a DIDDY came in first at Pound 4, which had 200 players and he didnt lose even one set. And a Snake came in 3rd. Both with relatively similar odds of obtaining there position. This is to show the fallacys of matchup ratios. Do you not agree that matchup ratios are somewhat scewed and overall wrong?

With that in mind, the worst match-ups may only be as bad as 40-60 for Ganon vs. IC. Everything else may be 49.5:50.5 kinds of ratios or something difficult to use. I see the match-up ratios as something relative. One character's board may say its 45-55 whereas another will say its 40-60 or 50-50. I generally compare the ratios to other ratios the respective boards say to get an idea of how bad they are.

Granted, what you gave about ADHD may be a testimony to his skill, rather than the ratios. But yeah, I agree. Match-up ratios probably aren't the best way to judge a game, seeing as they're heavily based on opinions.

 

[Inui]

I think mk is Zelda's worst MU. I don't really know of any others.

Zelda is unable to move. Every good character mutilates her. She is the most immobile (yes, worse than Ganondorf in this area) character in the game. Horrible jump, horrible falling speed, horrible dash. She can't move to ever get in on anyone.

MK is far from Zelda's biggest problem when it comes to being usable.

How is MK any worse for her than other good characters?

 

[rPSIvysaur]

The only thing he failed at was not giving a decent idea of how the MK would do. Your formula was just pulled out of nowhere with no explanation as to why you use it. Your formula doesn't even give a good idea. At least his shows a portion of the binomial probability and gives you a decent idea of what's happening.

Lolwut? Where'd he get his formula from. All he did was take something based off of .5 (MU ratios) in a base 1 system (multiplication), all I did was do it off of base 1 instead of base .5 to fit the system then fit it back into the standard base .5 we use to gauge MU ratios.

Hey, good posts again.

Fail.

Wario, Falco, ICs, Snake, Dedede, Marth, Game and Watch, and other good characters completely 100% negate mid/low tiers as well. I can't name a single mid/low tier where I believe MK is even their worst match-up, since MK doesn't have a 0 to death CG, infinite, projectile, etc. The other characters shut down low tiers even better. What do they do to get in against Falco? How do they avoid being grabbed by ICs? Etc.

Most characters who are dominated by these characters have problems that would make them unviable whether or not MK is present. One main goal is to help characters like Gdubs and Peach who are viable, but are rare in tournament due to how badly they lose to Metaknight. These characters would be viable if MK weren't completely dominating the metagame, but these characters are dieing nearly soley due to Metaknight.