I wouldn't have because of perceived bias, even though my score would've been 45%. If I could obstain from Chance and just give my 100% want score I would've. What meta score do you think would've been appropriate to give her?
Prior to E3 I would have given her a score of 60-65% depending on how I felt that day. While there was a good a handful of other participants that gave her a score that good or better that day, the atmosphere made it feel like they were taking a hard gamble for disappointment because those participants had to write a good explanation for their reasoning. On the other hand, The people who gave her a score lower than 30% didn't seem to put much effort into an argument if any to justify being that low as if it's implied giving Ashley a score lower than 30% is considered "playing it safe".
"Umm Ashley… let’s see here hmmm... I’ve never played WarioWare and don't know much about her so I'll write her off at 10%"
I'm willing to bet lot of participants look at the first few entries in the rate their chances (especially for a character they don't know much about) and base their score off of those to make their score feel more like an educated guess. What I'm saying is if the first few entries of the rate their chances that day would have instead been positive, the cattle would have followed. Of course there's always the exception for the independent thinkers.
What was funny about Ashley's ratings that day is that they were all over the place with mixed reviews. If someone educated in statistic were to compile a percentile chart showing the frequency of her rating scores it would be a much wider curve than most other rated characters.
So to answer your question of:
"What meta score do you think would've been appropriate to give her?" I base it off of two things; what do I feel is the lowest score an educated person could reasonably go without the influence of other people’s responses and what do I feel is the lowest score an educated person could reasonably give after being exposed what other people are saying.
It would be interesting way to play the game if everyone had to "take a shot in the dark". You don't know where the curve is heading before you answer so you better come up with a good reason without piggybacking off of someone else or throwing out your score with little reason as a way of implying that your score follows the current pattern and therefore your opinion should be exempt from criticism.
I did participate in the Rate their chances back during the Smash 4 days and of course I always felt a certain characters were rated unfairly. Off the top of my head, the best example of a specific character I can think of is Isaac (I feel like K. Rool is a bad example for various reasons even though he was highly rated and didn't make the cut). I mean no disrespect to Isaac or his fans but, I felt like he was being highly overrated due to emotional reasons despite the fact that he did have evidence pointing toward the fact that he was a reasonable character, just not strong enough evidence for what people were saying. The point I’m trying make is that the lack of Isaac or any other unfairly overrated character that didn’t make the cut isn’t necessarily going to make people reconsider their methods of how they rate a character. For that reason, and the fact that we have many new participants this time around again, I knew the cycle wasn’t going to differ much.
Soon after Smash was announced but, before I could see other people’s ratings of Ashley or any other character I formed my own opinions of what score I would give and the parameters of what would be considered a reasonable score. Without the influence of others I’d give Ashley a parameter of being reasonable score from 30% for low end to 85% for high end thinking she was going to place somewhere fairly close to the median in between the two. You may disagree with that with your own parameters but that is my opinion as I am taking a “shot in the dark”. As you could guess when I saw Ashley receiving a 34% I was a little upset her score was a little too close to what I initially considered the low end. What was more disappointing was how her score ranked among the other characters.
The problem with this is that when you see characters you feel are more or less likely receiving scores that are less or more likely than what you would have guessed respectively, it alters your opinion.
“If X character received X score then Y character deserves a Better/Worse score. Therefore, I will give Y Character a Better/Worse score than what I originally intended.”
Because of all of this, I think a character’s placement in the list of characters is a more accurate way of describing their chances of making it into Smash than simply a number.
If you say Ashley has a 50% chance of making it into Smash Ultimate that amounts to the successful chance of predicting a coin flip. What if I told you there is a 50% chance the world will end tomorrow. I mean there’s two possible outcomes that could happen right? Either humanity continues to live on another day or we all die. Well then I suppose I’ve been successfully predicting which way the coin will flip for the sake of keeping us all alive for the past however many days I’ve been alive! But you’ll never know if the world will end tomorrow so why would you think our chances of living to see next day should be anything less than 50%?
Going back to my point of why Ashley should be higher on the list let’s throw out a pool of Non-Echo Newcomers and rank them from most likely to least likely based on their score. Hypothetically speaking let’s say this is the outcome:
K.Rool> Simon Belmont>Elma> Ashley>Isabelle>Chorus Kids>Bandana Dee>Geno>and so on…
Since Ashley is placed in between Elma and Isabelle her score should be in between as well even if the gap between the scores is huge with say Elma sitting at 90% and Isabelle at 10% with the characters placing higher than Elma with a score higher than 90% and the characters placing lower than Isabelle with a score lower than 10% respectively. So giving Ashley a score of 60-65% like I originally planned would have fit.
Let’s say Sakurai has enough time to include 6 more characters. If that’s the case then the top six should be help at a higher priority and everybody lower gets the chopping block.
With that being said, if I went off the community’s opinion and put Ashley at number 13 on the list of Newcomers base on likeliness then there’s no way Ashley could make it in if we’re getting a hypothetical total of 8 newcomers. So to sum it all up, if I say I think Ashley is going to be in the game with only 6 more non-echo newcomers slots left then you better explain to me which 6 newcomers are held at a higher priority than Ashley and why they should be held at a higher priority to convince me why Ashley is not going to be in the game.