Realistic Ratios

[Sleek Media]

So, I've been playin' alot of Brawl lately, and between friendlies with my crew, and attending a recent tournament, I got to thinking: our matchup ratios against high-tier characters are nowhere near accurate. Now, I'm not as good as Boss, but I am a damn good Mario. I think I'm one of the best in the country. Not to be one of those guys, but I've done alot with the character. Enough that I think I have a pretty good handle on what is and isn't possible. I want us to really sit down and reconsider our matchup ratios. I don't want to discourage anyone here - rather, if the ratios I suspect are accurate, I'd like to make a case for abandoning the current tournament ruleset/vanilla Brawl for use in tournaments, and move to another system to make the game more competitive.


Start at the top, with Mr. Smash-by-the-numbers himself. We currently have this match at 70:30, which is insanely optimistic, even if the opposing MK doesn't understand the matchup very well. This match is UNWINNABLE under any circumstances. It is 100:0. We have absolutely no approach at all. We cannot fight back out of shield. We cannot defend effectively. We are helpless in the air, yadda yadda. The point is, MK can 0-death us, or at least 0-40 us without too much trouble, and we will only get 9% here, 13% there when he makes a mistake. When it comes right down to it, there is nothing we can do to win this match.


The worst designed character in the game is almost as bad as MK, and only slightly less bad because we actually have a counterpick stage (Brinstar). Outside of that, this match is at best 95:5, and more likely 100:0. Again, we have no approach, period. Falco beats us in pretty much every way, and without mistakes on his part, we shouldn't even be able to do damage. Even accounting for mistakes in realistic play, Falco gets a free 0-40% on grab, and after that, can chain a dThrow into other stuff like spikes. It's just a disaster.


Hopelessly outranges us in the air and on the ground. If we get in there, we box better, but the fact is, a Marth that is spacing properly is pretty much untouchable, and it's a matter of time before we face too much shield pressure or have nowhere left to run. I don't see how you can realistically win against a Marth playing the matchup correctly.

The list goes on. :ice climbers: etc. These are all 100:0. I'd like to be proven wrong, but this has been my experience so far. Let's be honest and discuss whether these matches are as hopeless as I think.

 

[Matt07]

Ice Climber's aren't that bad, it's winnable, but it's still in their favour. Main reason being is we have good options to seperate them (D-air is GREAT, D-smash.) Metaknight is Metaknight, haha. I honestly think Dedede is 10x worse then Metaknight with infinite enabled.

 

[z00ted]

This is a great thread.

Very realistic.

 

[Matador]

If these are REALLY your ratios, you're probably not as good as you think you are, to be frank.

I agree that they're probably a bit overrated, but it's not as bad as you're saying. Not to that degree.

 

[Fire!]

In reality, there is a much larger gap between the ratios we have now and what really happens to an average Mario player. Our ratios are more like if a high level Mario went up against an average MK.

More realistically, I see the MK matchup as 80-20 if you were to pit equally skilled players against each other. Speaking of which, we never really did finish that match-up discussion.

 

[JuxtaposeX]

Kirby is THAT bad for us?

 

[Coolwhip]

Kirby is THAT bad for us?

Kirby can **** mario dude. I got 3stock by kappy's kirby @ a smashfest.
and he knows the mario match-up, all in thanks to bo_x7's marry-o. xD

 

[Sleek Media]

If these are REALLY your ratios, you're probably not as good as you think you are, to be frank.

I agree that they're probably a bit overrated, but it's not as bad as you're saying. Not to that degree.

By all means, prove me wrong. How many high level MKs have any of us beaten lately? How about the others I've listed? Are we beating high level Falcos or DDDs, or are real world results actually much closer to my 100:0 assessment?

 

[Sleek Media]

Kirby is THAT bad for us?

It is surprisingly brutal if played properly. God help you if he copies fireballs. Overall, same problem as with the others; we have no approach, and he can do horrible and safe things to us.

 

[Kanzaki]

100-0 Ratios don't exist. It's practically saying once the match starts, you run off and lose. Kirby's and Ice Climber's not THAT bad either.

Like Matador said, you're probably not as good as you think you are =/

 

[SKidd]

Well, I've never had such trouble with these characters.




Only offline Marth. **** dancing blade.

 

[Matador]

By all means, prove me wrong. How many high level MKs have any of us beaten lately? How about the others I've listed? Are we beating high level Falcos or DDDs, or are real world results actually much closer to my 100:0 assessment? Tell us, since you're frankly so good.

There's more to it than that.

You also have to take into account the fact that the players have to be on the same general level of skill for the ratios to apply, and even then, the fact that the victories rarely happen doesn't equate to the ratios changing so drastically.

Remember, our best Marios have all pretty much hung up their hats...back when they played, they were raking in wins.

You also have to ask who's actually still active, and how good are they? I personally haven't been to a tourney since Februrary, and even then I couldn't enter. Xero's been inactive, Famous too...

Our only high level Mario right now is probably Kirin...and yes, I've seen him go toe to toe with high level players using high tiers.

Changing the ratios to outrageous figures like 100-0 won't do much of anything besides demoralize potential mains and give BBR another reason to keep us low.

 

[Conviction]

If these are REALLY your ratios, you're probably not as good as you think you are, to be frank.

I agree that they're probably a bit overrated, but it's not as bad as you're saying. Not to that degree.

Well damn.

 

[Sleek Media]

There's more to it than that.

You also have to take into account the fact that the players have to be on the same general level of skill for the ratios to apply, and even then, the fact that the victories rarely happen doesn't equate to the ratios changing so drastically.

Remember, our best Marios have all pretty much hung up their hats...back when they played, they were raking in wins.

You also have to ask who's actually still active, and how good are they? I personally haven't been to a tourney since Februrary, and even then I couldn't enter. Xero's been inactive, Famous too...

Our only high level Mario right now is probably Kirin...and yes, I've seen him go toe to toe with high level players using high tiers.

Changing the ratios to outrageous figures like 100-0 won't do much of anything besides demoralize potential mains and give BBR another reason to keep us low.

When, if ever, were we winning tournaments, or at least taking sets off of the best high tier players? I'm not aware of any Mario ever doing this. We know the best MK is M2K. Let's say the best Mario is boss. If Boss has never beaten M2K in a tournament, then the match is 100-0. It's very simple. When you can't win, it's 100-0.

If the MK or the other characters I mentioned have no idea what they're doing, you could make a case for 70:30, but played right, the matches are unwinnable. It's out of your control whether or not it's even possible for you to win. Why do you think all the good Marios quit in the first place?

You can argue that Mario players are much less skilled than high tier players, but I'd argue the opposite. I think generally, we are more skilled, as it takes significantly greater effort to scrape together a victory against pretty much all of the case except for Falcon and Ganny.

I said in the first post that I don't mean to demoralize anyone, but we need to face the facts here, and stop pretending with this candy land ratios. If we are honest with ourselves about the way this game was designed, maybe we can make a better case from moving away from the ridiculous tourney rule set that is in place.

 

[Matador]

That's not the way it works, lol. There's only a handful of people in the world that can beat M2K mainly because he's a phenomenal player. Do you know how many 100-0 match-ups MK would have by that standard?

I understand the point you're making, but it's flawed logic.

Lets assume that, before san was around, no Ike had ever beaten Ally's Snake. Ally was constantly running through random Ikes tourney after tourney. By your standard, that match-up is 100-0 Snake's favor. This is ignoring all of the things that Ike can do to Snake and all of the powerful frame traps and tactics that he has.

Then san comes around and randomly beats him. What happens now? The ratio HAS to change now...but to what? And you also have to take into account that maybe Ally was off his game...maybe it was a fluke...does the ratio still change even if no Ike ever beats him again? You have to take into account match-up knowledge, outside effects (lack of sleep, late tourney, MM? Friendly? Tourney set?), and are they ACTUALLY at the same skill level?

It just gets too messy when you base match-ups solely off of results. Yeah, if we have a match-up set to a certain ratio and results over time reflect the opposite, then that's cause for reevaluation.

Maybe options that we believed were viable at one point actually aren't as good as we considered, or maybe they have an AT that is really good against one of our tactics...If this is the case, we just change the ratio.

By the way, this is all beside the fact that I simply disagree with Mario losing to those characters that badly. Mario doesn't have unwinnable match-ups in this game...If it feels that way, then you need to improve.

 

[Conviction]

When, if ever, were we winning tournaments, or at least taking sets off of the best high tier players? I'm not aware of any Mario ever doing this. We know the best MK is M2K. Let's say the best Mario is boss. If Boss has never beaten M2K in a tournament, then the match is 100-0. It's very simple. When you can't win, it's 100-0.

If the MK or the other characters I mentioned have no idea what they're doing, you could make a case for 70:30, but played right, the matches are unwinnable. It's out of your control whether or not it's even possible for you to win. Why do you think all the good Marios quit in the first place?

You can argue that Mario players are much less skilled than high tier players, but I'd argue the opposite. I think generally, we are more skilled, as it takes significantly greater effort to scrape together a victory against pretty much all of the case except for Falcon and Ganny.

I said in the first post that I don't mean to demoralize anyone, but we need to face the facts here, and stop pretending with this candy land ratios. If we are honest with ourselves about the way this game was designed, maybe we can make a better case from moving away from the ridiculous tourney rule set that is in place.

I see my boy Mata can't reach through your thick skull. You are stupid. "LULULUZ I CANT WIN GUYS THE MU IS 0-100, PICK NEW CHARZ PL0X". Get real son, you act like M2K is the only MK, and to add to the fact the MU is between to players of equal skill. LET ME REPEAT, equal skill. How many people are of equal skill with M2K? Not many.

***** hop off that weed for second a take food for thought. If it was that bad why do you play this character?? By this logic why should any one play? If they lose, OH **** THIS JUST BECAME UNWINNABLE GUYS, WE NEED TO QUIT.

DERP. I don't main Mario but your stupidity is radiating out of the Mario boards I can feel. Stfu and go back to Candyland.

Get better, kid.

That's not the way it works, lol. There's only a handful of people in the world that can beat M2K mainly because he's a phenomenal player. Do you know how many 100-0 match-ups MK would have by that standard?

I understand the point you're making, but it's flawed logic.

Lets assume that, before san was around, no Ike had ever beaten Ally's Snake. Ally was constantly running through random Ikes tourney after tourney. By your standard, that match-up is 100-0 Snake's favor. This is ignoring all of the things that Ike can do to Snake and all of the powerful frame traps and tactics that he has.

Then san comes around and randomly beats him. What happens now? The ratio HAS to change now...but to what? And you also have to take into account that maybe Ally was off his game...maybe it was a fluke...does the ratio still change even if no Ike ever beats him again? You have to take into account match-up knowledge, outside effects (lack of sleep, late tourney, MM? Friendly? Tourney set?), and are they ACTUALLY at the same skill level?

It just gets too messy when you base match-ups solely off of results. Yeah, if we have it set to a certain ratio and results over time reflect the opposite, then that's cause for reevaluation.

Maybe options that be believed were viable at one point actually aren't as good as we considered, or maybe they have an AT that is really good against one of our tactics...If this is the case, we just change the ratio.

By the way, this is all beside the fact that I simply disagree with Mario losing to those characters that badly. Mario doesn't have unwinnable match-ups in this game...If it feels that way, then you need to improve.

Well damn.

 

[Sleek Media]

Haha, wow. Nice to see the Mario boards are about as good as the rest. Sorry I wasted my time. Have fun getting whupped, kids.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Saw this thread and immediately hoped it was in the Sheik boards.

I was disappoint.

Even more disappoint when I read the OP.

 

[Matador]

Haha, wow. Nice to see the Mario boards are about as good as the rest. Sorry I wasted my time. Have fun getting whupped, kids.

Well damn.

Was hoping I could get you to see from my point of view, but you're pretty adamant in the way that you view the community. It's unfortunate, really

 

[Conviction]

Haha, wow. Nice to see the Mario boards are about as good as the rest. Sorry I wasted my time. Have fun getting whupped, kids.

Well damn. Go pick Metaknight and stop whining LOL. I love how you addressed nothing and resolved to a weak call-out of the boards. Good play sir. Good play.

Well damn.

Was hoping I could get you to see from my point of view, but you're pretty adamant in the way that you view the community. It's unfortunate, really

No it's not, if you get him to switch to a different character that's one less person holding down Mario. LOL

 

[Sleek Media]

Well damn.

Was hoping I could get you to see from my point of view, but you're pretty adamant in the way that you view the community. It's unfortunate, really

Nah, I see what you're saying, but we might as well discuss in PM. These boards are beyond garbage.

 

[Matador]

No it's not, if you get him to switch to a different character that's one less person holding down Mario. LOL

Meh, it ain't easy being a Mario, lol. You can't imagine how disheartening it is to KNOW that you're out-playing someone but they're pretty much ****** you anyways.

Then they have the audacity to think that they're good when their character is giving them a huge boost.

That's the way I used to feel anyways. The "**** it" impulse is overwhelming at that point, lol. I'm salty deep down at every high tier main, but it comes with the territory of being a Mario main.

 

[Conviction]

We are all a little salty deep down inside when we hear "Metaknight"

 

[Kanzaki]

Wait.. who is this Slick Media?

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

These are the most retarted ratios ever.

 

[Kanzaki]

I think this is the first time me and XeroXen ever agreed to something <3

 

[Conviction]

Messenger from to tell you Mario has 5+ unwinnable MUs LOL

 

[Juushichi]

I feel like we should reboot this thread and have actually realistic ratios.

 

[steep]

I feel like you are all being really harsh to Sleek Media. Only Matador has been decent to him! Come on guys, just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean we should destroy someone like that. Iblis, for example. Come on dude stop tearing him down!

@Sleek Media: The way I see it, as long as we have some good options (OoS up b for example) that beat these high tier chars, then we are not faced with a 100:0 MU. A big part of brawl is momentum, and once you get momentum going, good reads, etc can lead to a stock regardless of what character your opponent is using. Top level Mario's have proved this time and time again. I for one appreciate what you are trying to do here but I also agree with Matador, in that we should try to figure out a more realistic way of determining our high-tier MUs.

 

[JuxtaposeX]

Don't feed the troll

 

[Sleek Media]

Yeah, it would really suck to have an actual discussion on this forum for once. Can't have that! L2P n00b.

 

[Conviction]

We having discussion about how unrealistic your "realistic" ratios are.

L2Read.

We out.

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

Yeah, it would really suck to have an actual discussion on this forum for once. Can't have that! L2P n00b.

No, we really can't. Nobody wants to talk about Brawl, it's not an interesting discussion to have. Especially not matchup ratios, I don't want to fall asleep at my monitor trying to read a bunch of people who think they know what they are talking about blather nonsense by smashing their head into their keyboard. After all, that is how the matchup numbers on the front page had to be made.

Not trying to be mean or anything, but everything I just said is scientific fact.

 

[Matador]

I think it's more important for us to actually get out there at this point.

I mean, think about it. NONE of us goes to tourneys regularly. Nobody.

Even then, there aren't any Marios active right now that exhibit Mario at the top of the metagame. As amazing as Boss and Kirin are, they don't give me the same feel as watching Will's DK or Verm's Ganon or Kain's Wolf.

I look at them and KNOW that this is representative of the top of their character's current metagame. Do we have any Marios like that? Maybe Boss while he still played, Flame, TC1 was really sharp...but currently?

That's what we need before we start to come to ideas like this thread. At that point, I'd be willing to concede that Mario is just bad. Otherwise, I still maintain that we're just bad with him.

 

[Matador]

Edit:double post, somehow.

 

[Juushichi]

I agree with you 100% on that Matador. For now I think we as Mario's just need to go back to square one. This is where the +\- system helps. We can give general feels of MU's for now and go out and test.

See what works, see what doesn't. Critique, learn, record and report findings. You can always go out and get more info. ****, even get serious friendlies recorded against good people or people that you play often (they're sometimes the only evidence of uncommon MU's around). Anything helps at this point.

 

[Matador]

Exactly, I'm glad you're already on the same page.

That's why I've been pushing this whole camaraderie, social chat, lets-get-together-and-make-s'mores thing between Marios...A steady flow of information between is important at this point...especially since our opportunity to prove ourselves is becoming smaller and smaller.

Dunno if you guys have noticed, but Brawl is slowly dying. That's partly due to people like myself being so inactive.

 

[SFA Smiley]

Lol at this thread.

 

[Sleek Media]

Dunno if you guys have noticed, but Brawl is slowly dying. That's partly due to people like myself being so inactive.

I'm actually going to disagree with you and say there are three reasons, in order of importance:

1) The smashboards community is great on technical knowledge and terrible on personality. I would never, ever take a friend who is not already on this site to any sort of event the people here hold, because I know it will be alienating and not fun in the least. Having a friendly community that is fun to play with is paramount, and you guys are not that.

2) So why aren't tournaments enjoyable? Because they're incredibly long and drawn out, the rules are boring and pointless, the balance is high-lariously bad, and again...bad crowd. These events are where you GROW the community. Instead, it's a gathering of the most hardcore, elite players and nobody else. Newcomers are not impressed by how well you can DACUS. Another thing to consider which I've brought up many times, is that not everything has to be a tournament or a gathering in someone's basement. Form leagues.

3) The better you get, the more it boils down to the character imbalance. You're in for alot of frustration and losses to lesser players with a character like Mario or Link. If you're playing for fun/enjoyment, then you don't put up with it, and leave the game. That's all.

So in short:
1) The community is a bunch of a**hats
2) LEAGUES, not tournaments
3) Players have options, and won't play if it isn't fun

Me, I'm switching to Balanced Brawl. There's absolutely no reason we haven't made this the standard anyway, except for the community wanting to keep the top characters on top.

 

[SKidd]

A lot is two words.