Roneblaster
Smash Hero
people are saying >> is only the worst MU's in the game. terrible idea.
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!
yeah, but you still have to have the >>> category for those matchupsi think one of the main things is that anything worse than >> no one cares about. it's not important to know EXACTLY how bad the worst matchups are.
I think so too, but I'm going with Icy's format for now since he's the one running this. But yeah I think having 7 is way better than 5 =\people are saying >> is only the worst MU's in the game. terrible idea.
I kinda agree with this. The numbers probably caused a more of an unnecessary commotion than the 7-level matchup system.I don't think the old chart broke down because we used 7 categories; it broke down when we tried to use numbers, which is 21 categories.
Told ya, Melee matchup chart is impossible to do accurately. Should just be ignored.****ing Otg was right lol.
There's nothing simple or mathematical about this - you're just giving the things different namesWhat happened to the simple, concise system of mathematical ratios to determine matchups?
50:50 > 55:45 indicates an even matchup.
60:40 indicates a slight advantage.
70:30 or more indicates a major advantage.
With this system, there are no semantics to discuss, which inevitably gets the conversation side-tracked.
I see the reasoning I think... Falcon loses platforms to camp on and to edge-cancel his recovery on, but he's still way faster than Peach. I'd say it's probably (lolarbitrarynumbers) 55:45, but I think that falls under even in this system?peach vs falcon on FD is even.
I understand the complications but:There's nothing simple or mathematical about this - you're just giving the things different names
Now, if you say that the ratios correspond to the expected number of games won by each side, then that actually means something. The issue there is that people have a really hard time relating their qualitative notions of difficulty with the expected number of wins. People tend to argue over things like 60:40 vs. 55:45 and in reality, nobody is able to tell the difference from those two from purely qualitative analysis. I don't think that approach really helps things.
This.So from what I gather of this:
>>> ranges from sheik/zelda (winnable if sheik plays the MU entirely wrong) to fox/kirby (unwinnable)
>> ranges from sheik/ganon (winnable, but difficult) to peach/ICs (bordering on unwinnable)
> ranges from fox/sheik (considered to be relatively even) to sheik/marth (where most people say sheik has a notable advantage)
Seems about right?
Not this.The way I gather the information:
>>> indicates a hard counter. 80:20
>> indicates a moderately hard counter. 70:30
> indicates a soft counter. 60:40
= indicates even. 50:50 > 55:45.
Does that make sense? Other people may not archive data this way, but it helps me.
No worries.i see. next thing for you to do then is to evaluate each matchup on each neutral
have fun![]()