• 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!

Official SWF Matchup Chart v2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

infiniteV115

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
6,445
Location
In the rain.
I agree with the bad shield and the juggling, juggling is the main reason he loses the MU and the fact that we can shield pressure him so well makes his ground game against us that much weaker, but no I don't agree with his recovery being 'really easy' to abuse.

Will almost never gets hit with the dsmash offstage, and he controls his upB well enough to make fairs and bairs hard to land, and fairly risky.
 

Neon!

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
1,285
Location
Dallas, Texas
My honest opinion on DK's matchups.

-4: DDD
-3: MK, Olimar, IC
-2: ZSS, Diddy, Falco, Wario, Pit, Pika, Fox
-1: Sonic, Snake, Wolf, ROB, TL, PT, Sheik, GW
0: Peach, Lucario, Marth, Ike, Kirby, Yoshi
1: Samus, Luigi, Falcon, Bowser, Mario
2: Link, Zelda, Ganon
3: Lucas, Ness, Jiggs

Matchups within the same category are also ranked, those to the left are harder.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
I agree with the bad shield and the juggling, juggling is the main reason he loses the MU and the fact that we can shield pressure him so well makes his ground game against us that much weaker, but no I don't agree with his recovery being 'really easy' to abuse.

Will almost never gets hit with the dsmash offstage, and he controls his upB well enough to make fairs and bairs hard to land, and fairly risky.
You can dair his up b and it will trade with him. Spikes him, saves you.
 

Ishiey

Mother Wolf
BRoomer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
7,292
Location
Land's End (NorCal)
My honest opinion on DK's matchups.

-4: DDD
-3: MK, Olimar, IC
-2: ZSS, Diddy, Falco, Wario, Pit, Pika, Fox
-1: Sonic, Snake, Wolf, ROB, TL, PT, Sheik, GW
0: Peach, Lucario, Marth, Ike, Kirby, Yoshi
1: Samus, Luigi, Falcon, Bowser, Mario
2: Link, Zelda, Ganon
3: Lucas, Ness, Jiggs

Matchups within the same category are also ranked, those to the left are harder.
I am glad that you finally accept Wolf beating DK.

Second the DK vs. Puff, not that anyone cares.
Punch is ghey


:059:
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
Seems pretty risky. I had enough trouble getting fairs and bairs.
Its true, also there's a chance you can hit him between hitboxes (they appear and disappear very quickly like nado or zss usmash) and spike him and kill yourself anyawy. :p

Still, forcing him to recover ultra safely is a pretty big advantage. You always know where he's going to be, and then he has to try to come back from the ledge. ZSS can cover almost all his ledge options, so even forcing him to the ledge is a pretty big deal. Like, rewatch your match vs. Will then Salem's matches vs Will. Side-b and paralyzer are really tough for him to deal with on the ledge.
 

Maharba the Mystic

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4,403
Location
Houston, Texas
tbh none of these MUs matter at all because the average TO has severely tampered with this game's design and thus makes it more unbalanced because TOs have an LGL on non metaknight characters. and whats funny is that the TOs who hate the lgl so much main characters like olimar (the tx TOs), marth (so-cal's finest and friend of rich brown who lost to DK's ****ty planking lololol), falco (we love you keitaro), you see where this is goin. and wats sad is that because of the lgl, ground based characters have completely taken over brawls metagame outside of MK himself, who rocks either way. do yall have any idea how drastically different the tier list and individual regional PR's would look if we hadn't ****ed up and added a non MK lgl? think of how much worse the lgl has made some characters overall

if you think about it, non MK lgl's only became popular because rich brown lost to will's planking. aka an olimar lost the first stock against DK like a bad player. but you know what's funny? not only are there a **** load of characters that **** planking, MK is almost universally legal again and he beats all planking. i mean seriously if characters like rob, zss, g&w, toonlink, pika, lucario, kirby, ike, diddy, snake, and more can stop planking but characters like olimar, ice climbers, falco, DDD, and like really low tiers (except zelda, she can **** planking) have a hard time with it, doesn't sound more like a character problem? or even a personal problem as people should have secondaries for that ****.

also who doesn't agree that characters like olimar, ICs, falco, and DDD don't deserve to get planked anyways? a character whose pivot grab covers 1/3-1/2 of smash ville (blue desynch pikmin literally grab half a stage away), a character whose grab=death, a character whose jab, grab, 33%invulnerable side-b, and lazers lock down an entire stage, etc.

think about it, lgl's are the absolute biggest factor in MU skewing nowadays since non broken characters are limited just like MK but without the neccessity
 

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
A rule set's place is not to balance a game, only to create an environment with the highest possible skill gap.

Leave the balancing to Sakurai and his team.

Will is not the reason a lgl is in place.
 

Maharba the Mystic

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4,403
Location
Houston, Texas
i said it became popular after that. think about how many regions adopted an lgl after that. norcal, tx (obv), some midwest states (shout outs to hylian for rocking no lgl still), im not sure about east coast as i didn't care about east coast until well after whobo3 as i was super new back then and didnt pay their rules to much attention.

and tbh it would create the same skill gap, you would just have to be smarter about more things. nowadays people think "he has to get off or he'll lose," as opposed to "i have to get him off or ill lose." it's literally there just to handicap good characters.
 

Tesh

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
9,737
Location
TX
Planking and Infinites dumb down the game alot though. At least one of them has been handled (sort of) in an enforceable way.
 

Maharba the Mystic

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4,403
Location
Houston, Texas
it only dumbs down things far more gay than itself. also why are you following my posts at 430 am?

also, if infinites remain legal then planking should remain legal. or at least give it a high *** number like 80 ledge grabs to compensate for ICs being allowed to single ice block hobble to run the timer until 300% (i am perfectly aware of Ice blocks effects from 201% on, with that and the after cg it is still a 3min unescapable move)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
When planking become a thing and became really annoying, it was a good amount of time after the game came out. We'd already sort of determined which characters were at least good based on what our conception of good play was. And then, suddenly, there was this strategy that could ruin good characters like Falco and Olimar. "Since these characters were good, the strategy must be really, really broken," they said. There was also the added frustration of it being a strategy that left one guy basically doing nothing while the other one stalled for 8 minutes and only avoided the "stalling" definition based on an extremely silly technicality.

So we had to ask ourselves: is this just digital Darwinism? Like, is Falco bad because he loses to abuse of a very fundimental game mechanic, or is the mechanic itself just really broken?

Our responses to this problem and the community reaction to the Meta Knight debates, as well as what stages we use and what rules we use, really expose a very character-oriented bias within the Smash community. We love characters, but specifically we really love characters good players have taken time to develop. Planking really hurt Falco and Olimar etc. and it felt pretty broken to watch high level players get beaten by it, so we regulated it. If planking was really only good against low tiers like Link, Mario and Ganon, I doubt we would have cared.

There are plenty of mediocre characters that have good anti-planking tools and in a way we took that strength away from them. We also took away options from characters who had strong but reasonable ledge games, like Pit and ROB.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
Planking would be so much less of an issue if people started to realize that the %-rule upon timeouts is the actual problem.

:059:
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
Well yeah, I agree with you and made several posts about it back then. A guy at 0% is in less danger of dying than a guy at 150%, but the 0% guy could still die to a single spike, shield break, etc. That's just not true in the games that we stole this rule from, so in Smash it does make a lot less sense.

The problem has always been finding a sensible alternative. We could just let the sudden death play out, but there are problems with that too.
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
Sudden Death is a lot better than people think. 1-stock rematch is also pretty good - although somebody might complain that ZSS or PT become stronger with only 1 stock, it's still a better solution than mere % imo.

:059:
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
I don't think ZSS or PT having the extra strength of being really strong when games go to time is that big a problem. If it had been that way from the start, we'd just acknowledge that you probably wouldn't want a game against ZSS to go to time.

However, what you might run into with a 1-stock rematch is players near kill percents stalling out the game in order to get a 1-stock rematch where they might have a second chance.

I think Brawl just isn't a 3-stock game, but a 1- or 2-stock game. 1- and 2-stock matches are better-balanced, much more exciting, and a little less prone to stalling and timeouts.
 

Tesh

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
9,737
Location
TX
Any rule or lack of rule is going to benefit one of the players/characters more. Anyone who wants to remove the percent rule is an idiot because there is nothing remotely better. The percent rule follows the best logic of any timeout clause.

Letting the person at 150% plank or stall out the person at 0% to get a reset is uncompetitive. As much as the community hates to see someone get outplayed then camped, we would hate it far more to see someone get outplayed then wash it all away by whoring out the timer.

And it wont be just MK players. Thing of Olimar/Falco against fast characters. With Sonic I could literally just jump around and avoid olimars kill moves all match and reset the game until I win by landing 1 hit during sudden death.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
Any rule or lack of rule is going to benefit one of the players/characters more. Anyone who wants to remove the percent rule is an idiot because there is nothing remotely better. The percent rule follows the best logic of any timeout clause.

Letting the person at 150% plank or stall out the person at 0% to get a reset is uncompetitive. As much as the community hates to see someone get outplayed then camped, we would hate it far more to see someone get outplayed then wash it all away by whoring out the timer.

And it wont be just MK players. Thing of Olimar/Falco against fast characters. With Sonic I could literally just jump around and avoid olimars kill moves all match and reset the game until I win by landing 1 hit during sudden death.
Yeah, this is a big problem with the 1-stock rematch and sudden death ideas. Can't be denied.

Again, I think the problem with Brawl competitively is that we just sort of stole Melee's rules at the beginning and assumed they'd work. Brawl 1-stock matches are competitive, fun to watch, take less time, and less prone to stalling and silliness (at least a little bit).
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
AAnyone who wants to remove the percent rule is an idiot because there is nothing remotely better. The percent rule follows the best logic of any timeout clause.
Even though sudden death and rematches aren't optimal, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Percent is so flawed and pointless ... I can't imagine that there's not a single better rule.

:059:
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,345
Location
New York, NY
3DS FC
5429-7210-5657
Percent is flawed but it gives the win to the guy who has the advantage when the timer runs out, which while flawed is less flawed than other solutions that have been presented.
 

Tesh

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
9,737
Location
TX
^ pretty much. It started out bad and people tried to fix it by changing as little as possible.

OSF doesn't have any of these theoretical issues and in practice, just having a low LGL+ scrooging limit+conservative stagelist and a percent rule does fine for standard 3 stock play too.


Gheb, its been 4 years. How can you not imagine it? People have tried and failed. Come up with a rule that will work better if you can and I promise you someone will try it. Every other objectively measurable stat is far more easily abused for a lesser player to win.

If you recognize percents as a lead, then the person winning will let the losing player take the risks trying to bring it back.

If you don't recognize percents as a lead, a player at even stocks has no reason to approach until he is hunted down and KOed. In this game it can be VERY very difficult to kill someone that isn't even trying to fight you.

Stock leads still exist and create a far greater need for every stalling limitation we have now. As I stated above, when someone only has to avoid kill moves to avoid losing, it can be difficult to score kills in alot of matchups.
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
Not with a timer they can't.

And "no timer" + "the losing player always has to approach otherwise they are stalling" (this is what the rule would devolve to, basically) is worse than "timer" + "victor determine by %"
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
Because without a timer, neither player ever has any incentive to approach.
Games will go on forever just because both players will be so safe. If you then chuck in a stalling rule to try and counter that, you're gonna be DQ'ing people left and right on pretty shaky, subjective premises.
 

Z'zgashi

Smash Legend
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
17,322
Location
WeJo, Utah
NNID
ZzgashiZzShy
3DS FC
1521-3678-2980
Lol the URC used to talk about stuff like this aaaaallllllllll the time.

still would like to try out 2 stock matches instead of 3, and I plan on doing so eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom