Official SWF Matchup Chart v3.0

[Ishiey]

Because I don't want to assume complete authority right away when I have the option of running it by a few others to make sure I'm not somehow missing something.

 

[DeLux]

If you need someone to ruffle feathers and/or make the magic happen, let me take charge of 3.x

 

[Ishiey]

But you'll put Wolf:ICs at +2... for Wolf

Nah but I'll probably hit you up once I have some sort of idea about what to do from here. PM me ideas if you have any btw.

 

[DeLux]

Might not be a good idea and suggested it in 90% jest. I'm not the most umm... popular? ... of MU debaters

But we can talk at some point

 

[TreK]

Do you have any other weighting systems in mind that might work?

Weighting is going to be arbitrary regardless. We have to make the formula based on what we want to calculate : if we want to calculate tourney viability, character usage and top8s are to be taken into account. But this kind of information is extremely subject to change over time. If we want to talk absolutes, my guess is that we should do an iterative method : create a ranking, weigh matchups accordingly to create a new ranking, repeat until there's no change between the previous ranking and the new one. In a better balanced game, this would end up in cycling patterns, but I doubt it would do that in Brawl.

Or we could just make a tier list with MK, and another one without MK, and embrace the subjectivity of it. That'd work too, eh.

 

[Ryo_Guikido]

ICs list revised by me/NAKAT (many of 9B's opinions included as well)

0
0
+2
0
+2
+3
+1
+1
+1
+1
+3
+1
+2 (-2 if you drop grabs, because then Lucario will body you with Aura).
+2
+2
+3
+2 <---- LOL NOT 0, WTF? Also wolf belongs below g&w and Fox.
0
+3
+3
-1
+1? me and NAKAT lack top ike exp
+3
+1
+3
+3
+3
+3 <---- LOL NOT +1, WTF?
+3
+2
+3
+4
+4
+4
+3
+3
+4

Ike vs IC's is for sure even...Ike out spaces them really well and can kill them very easily.

 

[Alphicans]

ICs list revised by me/NAKAT (many of 9B's opinions included as well)

0
0
+2
0
+2
+3
+1
+1
+1
+1
+3
+1
+2 (-2 if you drop grabs, because then Lucario will body you with Aura).
+2
+2
+3
+2 <---- LOL NOT 0, WTF? Also wolf belongs below g&w and Fox.
0
+3
+3
-1
+1? me and NAKAT lack top ike exp
+3
+1
+3
+3
+3
+3 <---- LOL NOT +1, WTF?
+3
+2
+3
+4
+4
+4
+3
+3
+4

This post irks me because why would you even bother with a post like this when you blatantly said you wanted nothing to do with the project...

 

[infiniteV115]

Yeah ZSS doesn't deserve the +1 against ICs, it's just that the last chart was wrong and nobody requested a change to that ratio so nothing happened XD

I have trouble believing that ICs are +2 and +3 against Pika and Ness, respectively. Seems like +1 and +1/+2 to me but w/e what do I know, I'm just a lonely Tyranitar waiting for the rainy days to end

 

[Rizen]

I thought the ICs list was joking.

 

[Luco]

I would literally never lose a tourney in your free country grim lmao
And that includes nationals

I'm sorry but it's stuff like this that really bugs me. EVEN if you were joking, we get so much of it i'm not even sure anymore.

People keep continuing to bag out other people's regions and those are the people that tend to lose respect the quickest. I'm sorry but from the videos i've seen of you, that level of play is far below that needed to win something here. We're not particularly fantastic but we're not free either so could people please just stop using Australia as an excuse to call themselves good, especially seeing as it's just not true? Please?

Thanks. =/

Anyway, although yes DK can truly infinite Ness and Lucas, IMO it doesn't warrant an MU that I reckon would otherwise be -1 or even to suddenly be -3. I wanna know what the evidence for a -3 is. I know people are smart enough to not just say 'well we +3 Lucas so we should +3 Ness as well because lol clones'. I'm genuinely interested. What did the Ness panel argue? *sigh*

It's an interesting chart, i'll give it that! ^_^

I dunno, I guess i'm probably really biased here. But still... surely there is at least something in what i'm trying to say?

 

[Rizen]

I'm sorry but it's stuff like this that really bugs me. EVEN if you were joking, we get so much of it i'm not even sure anymore.

People keep continuing to bag out other people's regions and those are the people that tend to lose respect the quickest. I'm sorry but from the videos i've seen of you, that level of play is far below that needed to win something here. We're not particularly fantastic but we're not free either so could people please just stop using Australia as an excuse to call themselves good, especially seeing as it's just not true? Please?

Thanks. =/

I knew this MU project would cause an international incident:
http://smashboards.com/threads/official-swf-matchup-chart-v3-0.338390/page-3#post-15666249

On behalf of American Brawlers I offer our deepest apologies and hope this won't hinder our countries' trading of cheeseburgers for boomerangs with each other.

 

[Luco]

I knew this MU project would cause an international incident:
http://smashboards.com/threads/official-swf-matchup-chart-v3-0.338390/page-3#post-15666249

On behalf of American Brawlers I offer our deepest apologies and hope this won't hinder our countries' trading of cheeseburgers for boomerangs with each other.

Jajajajajaja.

Naw it's okay America, we still love you.

We're just secretly worried you'll insult our hair and then we'll go and cry because of our low self-esteem.

Anyway, on topic - Rizen, what are your thoughts on the Lucas-link MU? I've never questioned it really I guess. I imagine Lucas would have a bit of a field day with Link off-stage and up-close he'd have an advantage with a frame 2 jab vs. a slower-than-normal one (isn't Link's like frame 5 or 6?). Link isn't destroyed in the MU or anything though and jab isn't the only thing that matters in close-up situations I know heh. I dunno, i'm interested.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

ICs list revised by me/NAKAT (many of 9B's opinions included as well)
+3

Ice Climbers can't even hit Jigglypuff if she doesn't let them (obviously she will take risks at some point or it'll just be a 0%/3-Stock time out, but yeah) - how could it possibly be -3?

 

[Osennecho]

Ice Climbers can't even hit Jigglypuff if she doesn't let them (obviously she will take risks at some point or it'll just be a 0%/3-Stock time out, but yeah) - how could it possibly be -3?

I'd love to see you 0% 3 stock time out Nakat, Vinnie, or 9B without exceeding the ledge grab limit with Puff. I'd put an insane amount of $ down that you couldn't. That aside. If you try to timeout a top level IC with Puff... You shouldn't be winning unless you are timing out sopo. That's part of why he said -3. Personally I'm with you if you say it's -2, but it appears you think it's only a -1.

 

[| Big D |]

As far as ICs vs Jiggs goes, I've had my fair share of endurance testing matches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zbp3HwDdo7U#t=255s (4:15) (Infamous 0% last min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LtLfNqB8aOc#t=768s (12:48)
(next time he tried when I banned Delfino)

It's really stage dependent. If the stage is sharkable or has platforms where the ICs have to double jump to reach, or just the platform on SV, then it becomes a lot harder to hit jiggs. In other cases, we can trap her landings and wrack up damage on her once she goes on the ledge with ice blocks and blizzard.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I do think it's only a -1
But I don't think I have to go even with 3 players who are better than me to prove that.
And I'd happily accept a -2 in lieu of a -3 (so good job match-up chart!)

Big D, that Jigglypuff isn't confident enough aggressively to play the match-up properly, he'd never win on a neutral in the match-up

 

[HeadofHudet]

Marth should be +1 against Snake and Falco ... I thought those were clear.

Falco vs Snake will always be even, if not maybe a slight advantage to Falco. Still nothing that touches the 1 mark.

Falco and Meta knight vs King Dedede is overestimated. Mk should have +2 over D3, while Falco should have +1.

Dedede vs Snake is pretty even.. but I won't argue at +1 either.

There are more matchups I feel uneasy about, like G&W vs MK (-2), but these are the facts I feel 100 % sure of, unlike Pikachu vs Mk. I daresay it's a good decision, due to pro player conclusions, but maybe not when it's the last tier list ... nobody except ESAM's more frequent opponents knows how to play against a top level pikachu now, so the number is obviously vague still.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If DK is -2 Meta Knight, how the **** is Dedede not lol

 

[FredFuchs]

get broccoli kong in here

 

[DMG]

"Marth should be +1 against Snake and Falco ... I thought those were clear.

Falco vs Snake will always be even, if not maybe a slight advantage to Falco. Still nothing that touches the 1 mark."




"Slight advantage" is the definition of the +/- 1 range btw. Because we all apparently couldn't handle the 100 point system, we have broader labels so that you can group things together easier without fighting over 5 points all the time. The downside to this?

Person A: "This character barely has an edge. Old school I would call it 55:45, in this system I would call it 0"

Person B: "This character barely has an edge. Old school I would call it 55:45, in this system I would call it +1"

Because now instead of fighting over 5 points, we have no idea what the labels really adhere to (or they are too broad), so we get a MU system that has people inadvertedly lumping up 2 completely different MU types into 1 label.


Mostly just my displeasure over the new system because it takes away precision. In the 100 point system, you could still USE these very same labels if you wanted. But no instead we have to wonder whether to call Pika vs MK 0 or 1, instead of 55:45. That was too hard for everyone I guess. fgalrlgjkajggh9uahgdsfgs

 

[Ishiey]

With the 100-pt scale some people still couldn't agree on what something like 65-35 was supposed to mean :/ I'm more inclined to think that these problems will show up regardless of the system used to label MU ratios.

 

[Xyro77]

If it matters, i approve of how Samus turned out in the chart.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yeah, because everyone knew exactly what they were talking about with the 100 point system.

55-45 was a soft counter
60-40 was a counter
65-35 was a hard counter
and then we had seven more ratios that were... harder counters? I guess? But no one used them except in a joking fashion or select low tier MUs.

OR, if you're talking to someone else
60-40 is a soft counter
65-35 is a counter
70-30 is a hard counter

etc.. etc...

 

[Alphicans]

That system was dumb because low tier players didn't like seeing 20-80 m/us for like 80% of them, so instead they went to **** like 65-35, when really that didn't reflect how bad their match-ups were.

 

[Ghostbone]

The ratio system is supposed to be a measure of how often you'd win

Like if MK: Pika was 55:45 then MK should win 55% of the time and Pika should win 45% of the time assuming equally skilled players, same exp in matchup, etc.
Yet people called 65:35 unwinnable, when that implies you win just over 1/3 of games if you're the countered character.
People had different definitions for each ratio, and it was needlessly precise when we have no way of being that precise. (it's like in an experiment giving your results to a higher precision than your uncertainty, it doesn't make sense).

That's why the ratio system was stupid.

 

[Rizen]

That system was dumb because low tier players didn't like seeing 20-80 m/us for like 80% of them, so instead they went to **** like 65-35, when really that didn't reflect how bad their match-ups were.

There's 3 characters who have -4 MUs to be realistic, Bowser, Zelda and Ganon. At least according to the current chart :/

It wasn't low tiers who spent much of the last 4 pages arguing if MK and Pika were even or specifc ICs ratios. Just sayin'.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The ratio system is supposed to be a measure of how often you'd win

Like if MK: Pika was 55:45 then MK should win 55% of the time and Pika should win 45% of the time assuming equally skilled players, same exp in matchup, etc.
Yet people called 65:35 unwinnable, when that implies you win just over 1/3 of games if you're the countered character.
People had different definitions for each ratio, and it was needlessly precise when we have no way of being that precise. (it's like in an experiment giving your results to a higher precision than your uncertainty, it doesn't make sense).

That's why the ratio system was stupid.

This doesn't make sense though, if you have an advantage in the match-up and you are equally as skilled as your opponent you should always win (i.e. 100-0, or I guess 90-10 to account for massive human error). Perhaps not for close match-ups, but when you have something blatant (like Zero Suit Samus being unable to deal with Falco's lasers) she isn't going to win 40% of the games, she'll win like 10%

 

[DMG]

Yeah, because everyone knew exactly what they were talking about with the 100 point system.

55-45 was a soft counter
60-40 was a counter
65-35 was a hard counter
and then we had seven more ratios that were... harder counters? I guess? But no one used them except in a joking fashion or select low tier MUs.

OR, if you're talking to someone else
60-40 is a soft counter
65-35 is a counter
70-30 is a hard counter

etc.. etc...

I've literally never heard someone call 55:45 a soft counter. What part of evenish did they not like?

That system was dumb because low tier players didn't like seeing 20-80 m/us for like 80% of them, so instead they went to **** like 65-35, when really that didn't reflect how bad their match-ups were.

That problem still exists, instead of 80-20 you have people who will never consider -4 because that's an icky rating. No let's have everyone go.... -2 or -3 on like a really bad day. That's an issue with people manning the **** up about their disadvantages regardless of system. (It's also sad watching characters who have big advantages try to downplay it and go for the lower rating. MK's old MU ratings were a ****in hoot I swear man)

The ratio system is supposed to be a measure of how often you'd win

Like if MK: Pika was 55:45 then MK should win 55% of the time and Pika should win 45% of the time assuming equally skilled players, same exp in matchup, etc.
Yet people called 65:35 unwinnable, when that implies you win just over 1/3 of games if you're the countered character.
People had different definitions for each ratio, and it was needlessly precise when we have no way of being that precise. (it's like in an experiment giving your results to a higher precision than your uncertainty, it doesn't make sense).

That's why the ratio system was stupid.

Then people were misapplying or misinterpreting the ratios. The same as if someone assumed every -1 or -2 MU is roughly the same difficulty as the other MU's in that heap, which we all know is BS.

TL:DR

Basic idea behind the new system made sense but it's too broad. "People can agree easier on advantages instead of numbers". Which makes sense, but with the huge cast roster we have + stage considerations to factor in, do we really think we make the right choice by condensing things down further? You basically lump together whole bundles of MU's under one umbrella. We took the system and made it kindergarden ez so that we don't have to count past the number 5. If we accept the premise that people can understand and agree on advantages and labels easier than numbers, then why not go back to 100 point system or even 10 point system and use these labels? Scratch that, we don't even apply these labels that correctly. Might as well make a chart that just shows whether they win or not. That would be even eaiser to agree upon, which seems to be our problem.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

We should use the decimal system.
+0, +0.5, +1, etc...

That way match-ups can be grouped together by whole number, like it is now, but there is a further subdivision which is understood to be less accurate/more questionable, but can still provide extra information.

 

[DMG]

That's basically the 100 point system, since no one but the most extreme butt monkeys would actually use ratings like 62:38 and 57:43

Due to how big Smash is for roster and stage influences, I would rather have a system that's adequately equipped to deliver on precision and have us fail to agree because we are poopie human beings, than agree perfectly with dumbed down values. Take Smash 64: it doesn't make sense to use an expansive rating system because their roster isn't that huge and their stage list is also small. Brawl is freaking massive, even if we were to only play on 3-5 stages.

 

[SFA Smiley]

GW MK isn't -2 wth, how did that happen?

MK and Snake are two of our easiest bad matchups and MK and definitely easier than Olimar.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Except the 100 point system can be interpreted like this

The ratio system is supposed to be a measure of how often you'd win

Like if MK: Pika was 55:45 then MK should win 55% of the time and Pika should win 45% of the time assuming equally skilled players, same exp in matchup, etc.
Yet people called 65:35 unwinnable, when that implies you win just over 1/3 of games if you're the countered character.
People had different definitions for each ratio, and it was needlessly precise when we have no way of being that precise. (it's like in an experiment giving your results to a higher precision than your uncertainty, it doesn't make sense).

That's why the ratio system was stupid.

Where as the +/- system cannot.

 

[DMG]

Fair enough. Since it's the same thing essentially, that is still the superior alternative and I would like to see us go back to that next time.

 

[Rizen]

It's been explained this way:

Spoiler

In general the ratio system is simply a system with 21 tiers of difficulty where we use 9.

100-0
95-5
90-10
85-15
80-20
75-25
70-30
65-35
60-40
55-45
50-50
45-55
40-60
35-65
30-70
25-75
20-80
15-85
10-90
5-95
0-100

To an extent. Comparing it to ratios doesn't really work, but if you're a tournament player you could consider +1 as "somewhat uphill but not much worse than even", +2 as "I'd rather not play this but it's doable with enough practice", +3 as "I need to avoid this matchup badly, it's very unrealistic to win" and +4 as "there's almost a 0% chance of winning if the opponent knows what to do". Because smash games are pretty balanced, most matchups fall in the -2-+2 range, barring matchup-defining exploits or plain bad characters.

I guess the one weakness is that you might feel there's something inbetween +2 and +3, at least when you start comparing matchups in the same tier. As one of the people who will some day be crucified for this system, I will hint that I feel 65:35 matchups are more or less missing. I'd usually group them with +2/-2, but that's just my opinion. The original thought was that +3 is quite severe and +4 should be a rare extreme saved for the worst of the worst.

*shrug*

 

[DMG]

I know the rationale and explanation behind it. I'm in the Backroom lol. I've read and heard a lot since it was first suggested.

(Good for other people to read though)

 

[PKBeam]

I don't see how and are both -2 for .
Maybe -1, but I don't get -2.

 

[DMG]

BECAUSE MELEE

 

[Ghostbone]

Eh, I like this system more because everyone knows what the numbers are supposed to mean (+0 basically even, +1 slight advantage, +2 moderate advantage, etc.)
We know what they're defined as at least

Whereas with ratios people disagreed with what a 55:45 or 70:30 matchup even represented.

This doesn't make sense though, if you have an advantage in the match-up and you are equally as skilled as your opponent you should always win (i.e. 100-0, or I guess 90-10 to account for massive human error). Perhaps not for close match-ups, but when you have something blatant (like Zero Suit Samus being unable to deal with Falco's lasers) she isn't going to win 40% of the games, she'll win like 10%

Then you'd never win against someone better than you either, you're also saying that for any slight difference in skill, one player will win 100% of the time.

Which is entirely wrong, in any one game you might read your opponent better than they read you, even though they're slightly better than you.
Hell brawl even has significant random factors (tripping, from dashing or from %chance moves) which closes skill gaps.

Same principle applies to disadvantageous matchups, it's essentially the same thing as playing against someone better than you. You can/will still win some games assuming that there isn't a large enough skill disparity.

Using your example, if ZSS wins 10% of her games vs Falco (I doubt it's that bad), then yes she would have a 9:1 matchup with Falco.
Writing the matchup as a 65:35 doesn't make the game anymore balanced (would still lose 90% of games), it only makes it look more balanced because you're skewing what ratios represent.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

When was the last time someone won a -2 match-up in tournament against an opponent of equal skill who was playing the match-up correctly?

 

[DMG]

Well see that depends, cause there are doable MU's in that rating like Peach vs Wario

And then there's some ridic **** like MK vs D3

So pick ya poison