The New Match-Up Chart v2 - Convert to +/-? ;;>_>

[The Star King]

2) You're really saying you win 90+% of the time by exactly 1 stock? That seems crazy to me.

You don't? That seems crazy to ME >_>

Numbers looks way more clearly than +, -, <, >>, ^, ¨, etc.

I dont get what people having problems with. 50-50 is a even matchup. 55-45 is close but some advantage. 60-40 greater advantage. 65-35 big advantage, 70-30 ****, 75-25 whos your daddy?

Its not like the match up is 60-40 then one wins 60 times and the other wins 40 times out of 100 matches. Its show how much advantage a player has over another. And it gets easy too understand and look at than the other suggestions.

Too vague, too open to individual interpretation.

To messure in exact stocks is wrong, cus you will never win with the exact same stock in a matchup every time.

No ****. It's an average.

Before I begin, I find that ratios themselves are only really useful when both players are equally skilled top players and know/play the matchup equally. In many ways, it is similar to the discussion on how valid tier lists are.



a word such as light advantage refers to what a ratio defines as well. "Light advantage" specifically I find refers to a matchup that is is 55-45.

I would suggest using +, -, >, <, and =, where:

<< 40-60+ Heavily Countered
< 40-60 Countered
=- 45-55 Softly Countered
= 50-50 Even
=+ 55-45 Light Advantage
> 60-40 Advantage
>> 60-40+ Heavy advantage

Or some other wording...someone else help with this...lol.

For the THIRD ****ING TIME, leave ratios out of it entirely. I have said this THREE TIMES specifically to you, all three times you have suggested your little conversion system.

 

[clubbadubba]

Numbers looks way more clearly than +, -, <, >>, ^, ¨, etc.

I dont get what people having problems with. 50-50 is a even matchup. 55-45 is close but some advantage. 60-40 greater advantage. 65-35 big advantage, 70-30 ****, 75-25 whos your daddy?

Its not like the match up is 60-40 then one wins 60 times and the other wins 40 times out of 100 matches. Its show how much advantage a player has over another. And it gets easy too understand and look at than the other suggestions.

To messure in exact stocks is wrong, cus you will never win with the exact same stock in a matchup every time. Numbers are allready decided, stick with it and focus on the matchups.

We obviously need to use numbers since we are using statistics, but we need a clear definition of what the numbers mean. "Close but some advantage" means one thing to you, but might mean something else to another. How many stocks left in a 5 stock match (on average) is something tangible that everyone can understand. Sure people will still have different opinions about how many stocks would be left, but at least we'd be discussing the same thing.

Point being we can't move on from the numbers when not everyone has a concrete idea of what the numbers mean.

 

[Battlecow]

I'm with Oly and the current system; you need precision in these things, so we use numbers (50-50 is different that 55-45 is different than 60-40 etc etc) because "+1" or "small advantage" doesn't allow us enough depth; when you say 55-45 people should know (although some evidently don't) that this means a small advantage; how much of an advantage becomes apparent in the context of the chart as a whole and experience with the game. The numbers shouldn't imply stock, % of wins, etc. because that's too hard to quantify/agree on and is untestable.

 

[The Star King]

I'm with Oly and the current system; you need precision in these things, so we use numbers (50-50 is different that 55-45 is different than 60-40 etc etc) because "+1" or "small advantage" doesn't allow us enough depth; when you say 55-45 people should know (although some evidently don't) that this means a small advantage; how much of an advantage becomes apparent in the context of the chart as a whole and experience with the game. The numbers shouldn't imply stock, % of wins, etc. because that's too hard to quantify/agree on and is untestable.

Precision? People only use multiple of fives. If match-ups are 75-25 at worst in this game, every possible ratio could be represented with 5 >'s/+'s. The actual numbers of the ratio are meaningless, while for >'s we can say something like, "for each one, you win by one stock on average".

 

[Battlecow]

I wouldn't have a problem with +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6/-1/-2/-3/-4/-5/-6

>>>>>> is too confusing though, as is ++++++. You gotta count out all the little thingys.

The numbers aren't meaningless, they represent how bad the matchup is. It's kinda arbitrary, but what's wrong with that?

I know I couldn't give the stock advantage you have for a lot of these MU's because I've never played someone of exactly my skill. I can, however, give you an idea of what the MU is like with NUMBERSZ.

 

[SilentSlayers]

As usual, I agree with everything The Star King says. I swear we have the exact same views on everything.

 

[Battlecow]

As usual, I agree with everything battlecow says. Man, that guy must be some kind of genius; he articulates everything so clearly. Plus he's handsome.

 

[The Star King]

I wouldn't have a problem with +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6/-1/-2/-3/-4/-5/-6

>>>>>> is too confusing though, as is ++++++. You gotta count out all the little thingys.

Fine by me.

The numbers aren't meaningless, they represent how bad the matchup is. It's kinda arbitrary, but what's wrong with that?

We don't know if people are thinking of the ratios differently or not.

I know I couldn't give the stock advantage you have for a lot of these MU's because I've never played someone of exactly my skill. I can, however, give you an idea of what the MU is like with NUMBERSZ.

I thought this was a good point until you felt the need to throw in the second sentence there.

As usual, I agree with everything battlecow says. Man, that guy must be some kind of genius; he articulates everything so clearly. Plus he's handsome.

If you're really that desperate for some love , I sincerely think you're the funniest guy on this section. Your vocaburariez are cool, too.

 

[Battlecow]

Woah now, I'm not Ciaza. You're too young for me anyways.
*sobs and feels reassured and at peace with the universe*
YOU'RE PRETTY COOL TOO!

 

[ballin4life]

I'm with Oly and the current system; you need precision in these things, so we use numbers (50-50 is different that 55-45 is different than 60-40 etc etc) because "+1" or "small advantage" doesn't allow us enough depth; when you say 55-45 people should know (although some evidently don't) that this means a small advantage; how much of an advantage becomes apparent in the context of the chart as a whole and experience with the game. The numbers shouldn't imply stock, % of wins, etc. because that's too hard to quantify/agree on and is untestable.

Numbers to me indicate something that is quantifiable. There is no point to describing each matchup in ratios like 65:35 if those numbers don't mean something. Especially because 65:35 to me means win 65% lose 35% (I guess you could do the stock thing too, but just saying 65:35 means "large advantage" is confusing. Why not just say "large advantage"?).

As usual, I agree with everything battlecow says. Man, that guy must be some kind of genius; he articulates everything so clearly. Plus he's handsome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPL8TTjn_KY&t=5m53s

If you're really that despereate for some love , I sincerely think you're the funniest guy on this section.

Oooh I wanna see the tier list!

 

[Battlecow]

I thought of me when I came to that scene in the movie (watched it last week).

 

[ciaza]

Woah now, I'm not Ciaza. You're too young for me anyways.

Just what is this supposed to mean?

I'm with Oly and the current system; you need precision in these things, so we use numbers (50-50 is different that 55-45 is different than 60-40 etc etc) because "+1" or "small advantage" doesn't allow us enough depth; when you say 55-45 people should know (although some evidently don't) that this means a small advantage; how much of an advantage becomes apparent in the context of the chart as a whole and experience with the game. The numbers shouldn't imply stock, % of wins, etc. because that's too hard to quantify/agree on and is untestable.

Thinking more on it, I personally like this system, as long as you point out that the ratio is not indicative of a general W/R ratio, but rather that of roughly a character advantage. Yes, you could just use "large advantage", "small advantage", etc, but you can tentatively use numbers for math-craft situations as teh icy has shown. However, I can also see using aforementioned worded terms to describe MU's and then later temporarily assigning numbers to these for math-craft purposes.

 

[Fish641]

KDR seems like the best way to quantify this kind of thing. Obviously if a pikachu and link of equally high skill level played each other, the pikachu would win every time. But by how much? That's what these matchups should be telling us. How about a scale based on a hypothetical 100 stock match? How many stocks would the victor be ahead by? It's probably more confusing than just a simple KDR, which (at least imo) is a clearer, more arguable scale.

 

[Battlecow]

Star King: "If you're really that desperate for some love..."

Me: "Woah now! I'm not Ciaza."

Get it? 'Cause you're gay? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oooooooooooh god, sometimes I make myself laugh almost too hard.

 

[ballin4life]

Obviously if a pikachu and link of equally high skill level played each other, the pikachu would win every time.

See, I disagree with this.

 

[Battlecow]

Nah, I agree. On DL at least, I'm actually pretty sure about it.

 

[The Star King]

Yeah I actually think it's kind of ridiculous ballin4life disagrees.

Just how inconsistent is he/the people he plays with?

 

[ballin4life]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

You're saying if I played infinitely many games with your Pikachu, I won't win any of them? Note that my Link is terrible so it's presumably worse than your Pikachu (for either of you).


Can A$ back me up here?

 

[The Star King]

No, but it won't be as high as something like 25% of the time, like match-up ratios suggest. It'll be quite rare.

A$ won't back you up :D

 

[ballin4life]

Obviously if a pikachu and link of equally high skill level played each other, the pikachu would win every time.

See, I disagree with this.

Yeah I actually think it's kind of ridiculous ballin4life disagrees.

Just how inconsistent is he/the people he plays with?

No, but it won't be as high as something like 25% of the time, like match-up ratios suggest. It'll be quite rare.

A$ won't back you up :D

Does not compute.

 

[The Star King]

I'm pretty sure Fish641 meant NEARLY every time, not every time for an infinite number of games played. And I'm pretty sure that's how Battlecow interpreted it; that's how I did. No need to take everything so literally, bro.

 

[x After Dawn x]

TSK what's your msn bro, pm it to me i'd like to play a couple matches with you.

 

[Fish641]

I'm pretty sure Fish641 meant NEARLY every time, not every time for an infinite number of games played. And I'm pretty sure that's how Battlecow interpreted it; that's how I did. No need to take everything so literally, bro.

In practice, yeah, it won't be every time. I thought theorycrafting assumes both players are consistent and the highest level possible. (I could be wrong; I'm just trying to get on the same page as everyone else.)

 

[asianaussie]

Not highest level possible, highest human level possible. Close enough, I guess.

A consistent Pika will absolutely dominate a consistent Link at least 85/100 times on Dreamland, yet I'm not calling the matchup hopeless for Link. 75/25 is a suitable ratio, but it should not reflect variance due to the nature of smash 64.

 

[ciaza]

I didn't even think it was highest human level possible (Isai), I thought it was just high level play in general.

 

[t3h Icy]

My opinion isn't based off Battlecow alone. I've never really had ANYBODY wreck me in this match-up.

We really don't care how godtier you are at Puff/Luigi, maybe when we get to those characters. Stop derailing please. ;D

I wouldn't have a problem with +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6/-1/-2/-3/-4/-5/-6

So replace those with multiple of 5, 0 being 50 and voila!

Just what is this supposed to mean?


Thinking more on it, I personally like this system, as long as you point out that the ratio is not indicative of a general W/R ratio, but rather that of roughly a character advantage. Yes, you could just use "large advantage", "small advantage", etc, but you can tentatively use numbers for math-craft situations as teh icy has shown. However, I can also see using aforementioned worded terms to describe MU's and then later temporarily assigning numbers to these for math-craft purposes.

More or less this.

 

[t3h Icy]

Anyway, on topic:

Is Falcon overrated vs Pikachu (is it 55/45, or 60/40)?

How bad is Ness vs Pikachu?

Is there a significant difference in difficulty for Link to beat Pikachu than Ness and Samus?

 

[asianaussie]

Pika-Ness is bad. Very bad. 70-30. All Ness can do is hope to abuse Pika's bad techroll or get a good read and edgeguard. Pika just throws and lols.

imo Pika-Falcon is still 60-40, but I can see why people want to tilt it to 55-45 because it is arguably Pika's worst matchup on Dreamland.

Samus and Ness beat Pika easier than Link does imo. Link >> Ness = Samus imo if the Samus is an enormous *****.

 

[DMoogle]

Can A$ back me up here?

A$ won't back you up :D

+1 to no need to take things so literally. You guys don't seem to really be disagreeing, it looks like it was just a misunderstanding.

FWIW if I could somehow play myself, then I suspect that my Link would beat my Pika on Dreamland maybe 5% of the time, and I think my Link does pretty damn well against Pikas. However, if my Link played someone just a little bit worse than myself, then I think that % would double, triple, or quadruple easily.

Ratio based on win percentage is inherently a very flawed system. I like playing four stock, which is one stock less than most people, so these win percentages are going to be different just because of that fact. Obviously it's ideal that we have some kind of quantifiable system though. How about we base it from stock tradeoffs? E.g. on average, for every one stock Link takes from Pika, Pika takes 1.6 stocks from Link.

Advantages: Fundamentally a sounder methodology, requires a smaller sample size.
Disadvantages: More difficult to estimate.

 

[The Star King]

You guys don't seem to really be disagreeing, it looks like it was just a misunderstanding.

Basically 90% of arguments with ballin.

 

[x After Dawn x]

Pika-Ness is bad. Very bad. 70-30. All Ness can do is hope to abuse Pika's bad techroll or get a good read and edgeguard. Pika just throws and lols.

imo Pika-Falcon is still 60-40, but I can see why people want to tilt it to 55-45 because it is arguably Pika's worst matchup on Dreamland.

i completely agree with all of this.

 

[ballin4life]

Not highest level possible, highest human level possible. Close enough, I guess.

A consistent Pika will absolutely dominate a consistent Link at least 85/100 times on Dreamland, yet I'm not calling the matchup hopeless for Link. 75/25 is a suitable ratio, but it should not reflect variance due to the nature of smash 64.

Ok, then why not just call it 85/15?

Basically 90% of arguments with ballin.

Really? Have you forgotten Barry Bonds and the great Free Will debate so soon?

Although I will say it's pretty easy to have a misunderstanding when someone says things like "pika will win every time" and I say I disagree and everyone else is just like LOL ballin.



Anyway, my position is that it's confusing as hell to use ratios like 65/35 if you don't mean win%. I think +1, +2, ... +n is fine (although I think n should be fairly low, because really debating the difference between a +4 and +5 matchup seems tough).

 

[t3h Icy]

Updated Pikachu's match-ups, and now onto Fox. The rankings are also in re-ordered data based on the match-ups of Dreamland only, so many rankings are incorrect, as we haven't gotten through all the characters. If you flame me for this, you're dumb.

Also, feel free to discuss Fox vs Pikachu if you'd like to, and any other match-ups we end up back on later.

 

[Battlecow]

Gotta be 55-45 against doug. I might be bias because that MU is my favorite in the whole game, but no wai does mario/kirby do as well as TEH BLACK DOUGLAS. Back me up here guys; everyone knows Fox on Hyrule and Doug on DL are pika's Kinda-OK non-pika matchups.

 

[asianaussie]

I think Kirby does fairly well against Pika on Dreamland.

 

[Olikus]

Gotta be 55-45 against doug. I might be bias because that MU is my favorite in the whole game, but no wai does mario/kirby do as well as TEH BLACK DOUGLAS. Back me up here guys; everyone knows Fox on Hyrule and Doug on DL are pika's Kinda-OK non-pika matchups.

^^^This

Your not biased your right. :D So far the only reasons for it not being 55-45 is "I think its ovverrated" and suchs. The only reason its not 50-50 is becuase pika has such a better recovery then falcon. The DL stage in itself is much, much better for falcon than pika. The platforms are design for im to upair, upsmash, on all day. And it allso cuts pikas arial game as long as you know how to platform tech descent. If DL was big it would probably be pikas worst stage.

Pika has to stay away of the platforms to not get upmsashed, uaired. On the ground its easier for falcon to get a grab befcuase of his speed. PIkas best change is in the middle spacing upairs and bairs.

Ofc since the stage is so small, pika will win anyway most of the times, cus he can gimp and edguard falcon easily. Overall its not a fair matchup. But becuase the stage is so good for falcon its the only place it can get even.

 

[Sangoku]

I still think falcon isn't so good against pika there. And I'm a falcon main (among others, but still).

So infinite upairs chains don't work so well on pika since he's so light (and has a lolol upb) and if falcon can't upb at the end of it, pika won't die by uairs.

Why pika has to leave platforms? If the falcon is dumb enough to run to upsmash, pika can just run off and bair falcon or whatever.

Platform tech-chase: is falcon really often sending people to the ground anyway? Except from dair which can easily be countered I don't see many moves.

And why is pika's best place in the middle? On the contrary the sides are very dangerous for falcon since one throw or anything knocking him off the stage means death.

You say we're only saying falcon on dl is overrated but I feel you're also only saying "this is falcon's playground". As you pointed out, don't forget how small is the stage.

 

[Olikus]

I didnt mean falcon tech chase. I said the platforms ruin some of pikas arial game. So as long as you tech you should be able to get out of many of his combos on that stage. And as i mentioned the platforms helps falcon to do longer comboes than on other stages, not only one place but several places, all 3 plattforms which allso cover the whole stage. He has various oppurtunities to z2d pika.

By the platforms is simply because falcon attacking upwards beat pika attacking downwords, so pika has to attack from the side.

And yeah Im aware of your point with the small stage, as I self mentioned. Thats why pika has the advantage. But you have to get the oppurtunity to kill before getting the kill. And the stage helps falcon more out than pika on that.

On hyrule, congo, peach, sure 60-40 pika. Maybe even more. But on DL falcon is the only one who can play close to pika.

 

[Sangoku]

Sorry but I'm still not convinced. All you're saying is "the stage helps falcon with the platforms". While it might be true to some extent I don't find them particularly helpfull against pika as the uairs combo doesn't get really longer anyway. And as I said since you can hardly finished them with upb they're not so usefull as death combos. I play a lot falcon myself but I wouldn't feel safer facing pika on dl than on hyrule. So I'm still in favor of 60-40.

 

[Olikus]

Its not like falcon cant upb pika, and he can spike him too. Still if you dont get the kill at least you have comboed pika up too 80+ percent when he gets very vunreable.

What shall faclon do on hyrule? Pika has all the space he wants, the tent, the left side, not much platform help for falcon. On hyrule its probably 65-35 pikas favor.

Good example is jam vs funk in OCC tourney. They are imo very close in skill. On DL they trade allot of hits and win one match each. On hyrule both matches jam won clearly. Ofc not alone a proof of the matchup( I actually critizied TSK for it so now I feel dumb) but he has a point that you can get some what of picture of the matchup.

At least since they two are close in level.