Update [I guess this is happening!] Match-up Chart

[Little England]

Agenda

Completion dates will be placed in brackets [like this].

1. Develop Mission Statement (doesn't have to be super elaborate. just give the purpose of the project.)
[12/20]
2. Develop Rating System (I already like Fly's idea and I believe that can be translated to numerical ratings easily ie. 55:45, +4, etc.)
[12/20]
3. Decide upon at least 3, but no more than 5 high/top level players per main that we can contact regularly. (I assume people liked my list. I can revise as necessary)
[12/30] -gave 10 days for this because I expect holiday johns. lol
4. Distribute the aforementioned developments of parts 1 and 2 to these players via pm. This includes the format of the pm that will be sent to each player. (include in the pm the option for all recipients to work together or alone)
[1/6/12]
5. Combine and review match up ratings for each character. (For those groups that chose to work alone, we will combine those ratings and reach a conclusion on our own)
[1/13/12]
6. Develop match up chart. (how would you guys want it to look in format/aesthetics?
[1/20/12]


Lastly, I've been thinking that it would be cool if the chart would hyperlink to descriptions for each match up. Since the chart is double sided it could link to descriptions from the perspective of each main. This would of course be a continuation project/just an improvement of our product.

initial post
Not sure if this was discussed somewhere else, and the idea died but anyways...

Tier lists are ok, but much less useful than a match-up chart. I'm 99% sure most of you guys agree, and I'm willing to bet we can put enough heads together to make this. I think that either 64 or Brawl match-up chart formats are solid. example...

Perhaps even link descriptions of certain match-ups if possible.

I'll leave this chart around for reference.

 

[Marc]

The Brawl matchup chart will have an update later this month actually. We'll have some writeups this time too and will try to add more over time. It's definitely the toughest project I've ever done, but it's doable provided enough people are willing to put in effort. Slhoka has helped me out with it tremendously, so perhaps him and me can think of a format that would suit the MBR.

 

[Strong Badam]

I think we could do something in the single digits like 6-4 or 7-3. Anything more and it's a bit silly.

I don't personally like BBR's method of +1 +2 and etc. tbh. I'm down for helping out on a match-up chart, regardless.

 

[Little England]

I think we could do something in the single digits like 6-4 or 7-3. Anything more and it's a bit silly.

I don't personally like BBR's method of +1 +2 and etc. tbh. I'm down for helping out on a match-up chart, regardless.

How is 6-4 different than +1? 3-7 different than -2?

 

[Strong Badam]

Because if you're using that type of conversion then what's the point in doing +1/+2 to begin with? The other fighters use 5-5 6-4 etc. The only reason I see to use a +1/-1/etc system is if it's defined differently than 5-5/6-4/etc.

 

[Marc]

The way I see it you essentially have a set numbers of tiers under which to define matchups. The BBR MU Chart has 9, the ratio system (55:45 etc) has 21. It really doesn't matter how they are labeled, as long as it's clearly understood what is meant with each increment. From experience it's hard enough to get a consensus with 9, but 11 might be worth considering. I could go in-depth later if necessary.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Does it matter whether the box says "6" or "+1"? It means the same thing...

 

[Strong Badam]

The way I see it you essentially have a set numbers of tiers under which to define matchups. The BBR MU Chart has 9, the ratio system (55:45 etc) has 21. It really doesn't matter how they are labeled, as long as it's clearly understood what is meant with each increment. From experience it's hard enough to get a consensus with 9, but 11 might be worth considering. I could go in-depth later if necessary.

I don't think we should split hairs over 5 points. If it's even enough then 5-5, if not then 6-4 imo.

 

[Marc]

I'd rather do away with ratio thinking altogether and think in terms of what is meant. Is it even or a small/medium/large advantage? Or is it downright unwinnable? For me, the -4 to +4 system covers all bases in that regard.

 

[Little England]

^ I'm up for that. We should have a key that shows what the numbers mean of course.

 

[Marc]

-4: (close to) unwinnable
-3: large disadvantage/hard countered
-2: medium disadvantage
-1: small disadvantage
0: even
+1: small advantage
+2: medium advantage
+3: large advantage/hard counter
+4: (close to) unloseable

Some people feel there needs to be something inbetween 2 and 3, but so far I've not heard a definition or label other than that it's like 65:35. >_>

 

[Little England]

Looks good to me. I think we should just get this project rolling then. I'll post later with a tentative schedule of assignments and deadlines.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think itd be better to start from somewhere instead of starting from scratch. t3h icy's chart only goes to 3, but it might be a good place to start filling in numbers and changing the ones that are wrong.


How is this going down? Is this a back room discussion, or is the discussion going public? If its private, we should get the opinion of good players who are not in the BR (HugS, S2J, SW, etc) escpecially in the match-ups they know the best.

 

[Little England]

I'd prefer this discussion to be private. Ideally we'd get high level players for each character to give us their opinion on every match up on Marc's -4 to +4 scale and come to a conclusion about the match ups based on those opinions.

 

[Marc]

I think you need to start making a list of whose opinions you'd ideally want to have. The character panels for Brawl usually consist of both top players and lesser gods who are still good at debating and organizing (of course, they still need to main the character in question). I can get in touch with quite a few Europeans and am willing to contribute to Sheik and/or Peach if necessary.

 

[Little England]

Fox- Lovage, SW, Unknown
Falco- PP, Zhu, Leffen
Jigglypuff- Hungrybox, Darc
Sheik- Kirbykaze, M2K, Tope
Marth- M2K, Taj, Cactuar
Peach- Armada, Vanz, MacD
Falcon- S2J, Hax
ICs- Fly Amanita, Wobbles, Chu
Doc- Shroomed, OTG?, HMW?
Ganon- Kage, Linguini
Samus- HugS, Spaceballs? Duck?
Pikachu- Axe
Mario- Eggz?, Shroomed?
Luigi- Vudujin, Abate, AJP?
DK- MEXICAN
Link- Germ, Skler
YL- Armada, D20?
Zelda- Cosmo, Umbreon
Roy- Sethlon, Vman?
Mewtwo- Taj
Yoshi- Leffen, Vman
G&W- Cactuar
Ness- no clue. this is my low tier of choice, so if if nobody else could do it I could.
Bowser- no clue
Kirby- Hack, Nashun
Pichu- no clue
[If we can get Mango for any of his characters that'd be great.]

These are people I feel have valued opinions.

 

[Marc]

Sheik needs more Amsah. For Brawl the panels were usually at least 5 people so you have a broader perspective and potentially run into less situations where 1 person is a tie-breaker. I don't know if you want these people to sit down with each other or just average out their opinions though.

 

[Dr Peepee]

I can probably get Mango's opinions on whoever you need. It won't be a wall of text or anything but it'll be something I suppose.

I'm willing to throw down information for this whenever it gets started. =)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I believe OTG plays more mario than the other doc mains you listed. Could be wrong. Also, Jman for fox if his post quality is good (not mango level lol). I know Matt and Tom have meddled with G&W, Mario and DK in tournaments recently so their input might be useful. Unknown plays some pichu, or so i've heard . I like the list and I agree with everyone you put on there. Even the '?'d ones would have good information.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think this is a great idea if we can manage to get it going, but to my mind the biggest problem with charts like these is that everyone has a different idea of what all the numbers actually mean. The numbers don't actually seem to quantify anything, we only know what "55-45" (or whatever) means by induction, that is, by what matchups people have used it to describe.

I don't think it necessarily has to be a precise mathematical formula, but we should have guidelines for what the numbers actually mean. They have to be strict enough to be useful in differentiating, but loose enough to avoid implying precision in measuring the matchups that we do not have.

We would also need to make some assumptions about rules and stagesets.

 

[Marc]

We already have a rating system, scroll up.

Should probably just assume the MBR ruleset or whatever is more common.

 

[Strong Badam]

DK- MEXICAN

These are people I feel have valued opinions.

Oh, oka y.

 

[Skler]

I'd be down with helping out on this.

Booya.

 

[Deleted member]

you should put me down for roy as well. vman's looks pretty solid, but mine is probably as good as his and a LOT more experienced. i know roy's matches really well. same @ ness.

that said, almost all of them are terrible. lol

 

[leffen]

Great idea, I'd like to be on the Fox side too if possible (since I main him now).

I'll also be able to help out with low tier matchups, I play a lot of characters at a high level

 

[Slhoka]

I think that when it's possible, it would be great to have a larger panel, up to 5 people, in order to compensate biased opinions.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

We already have a rating system, scroll up.

Should probably just assume the MBR ruleset or whatever is more common.

Well, sort of, but not really; that just pushes the question back a step. We already knew that "55-45" or whatever means "small advantage" intuitively, but what does "small advantage" actually mean? Are we going to have a standard, or are we going to ask people to place matchups in one of 5 bins/tiers, whose boundaries will vary from person to person?

I completely understand that there are inescapably subjective aspects of rating matchups, but we should do as much as we can to get people to agree on what the terms mean.

An interesting addendum to the chart could be best stage(s) for each character in a given matchup, based on the opinions of the top mains of those characters. I'm imagining like the stage abbreviations in small caps under the number in the chart.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

The definition I like to go with is a match-up between characters A and B is r:1-r if, in a best of 3 set with *insert whatever rules are being assumed*, A has a chance r of winning provided that both players play the match-up at the top level in the current metagame. The last bit is a little vague, but not to an extent that I would stress about. My choice to look at bo3s instead of, say, bo5s or bo7s, is mostly based on the fact that I think the difference between the odds of winning in any of these cases is very small, and also since bo3s are easier to analyze.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

That's basically what I had always imagined it to be, but people basically co-opted it to be more qualitative than quantitative.

On the other hand, we don't have much in the way of actual data, and I don't know if we should trust people to turn their opinions about matchups into numbers, so perhaps my point is overly pedantic.

 

[Little England]

Update

Agenda

Completion dates will be placed in brackets [like this].

1. Develop Mission Statement (doesn't have to be super elaborate. just give the purpose of the project.)
[12/20]
2. Develop Rating System (I already like Fly's idea and I believe that can be translated to numerical ratings easily ie. 55:45, +4, etc.)
[12/20]
3. Decide upon at least 3, but no more than 5 high/top level players per main that we can contact regularly. (I assume people liked my list. I can revise as necessary)
[12/30] -gave 10 days for this because I expect holiday johns. lol
4. Distribute the aforementioned developments of parts 1 and 2 to these players via pm. This includes the format of the pm that will be sent to each player. (include in the pm the option for all recipients to work together or alone)
[1/6/12]
5. Combine and review match up ratings for each character. (For those groups that chose to work alone, we will combine those ratings and reach a conclusion on our own)
[1/13/12]
6. Develop match up chart. (how would you guys want it to look in format/aesthetics?
[1/20/12]


Lastly, I've been thinking that it would be cool if the chart would hyperlink to descriptions for each match up. Since the chart is double sided it could link to descriptions from the perspective of each main. This would of course be a continuation project/just an improvement of our product.

 

[Strong Badam]

So uhhh how's this going?

 

[Little England]

It's not going. tbqh I think the some of the mbr is all talk. >_<

 

[Marc]

The MBR is mostly talk, but you're also expecting people to be proactive (which sadly they won't be).

The BBR chart rating system is fine IMO and the mission statement is to have an accurate MU chart for sets played under the MBR recommended ruleset (I suppose). I think you need to start delegating tasks, make people responsible for getting the scores for each character fleshed out and set deadlines. For example: give Strong Bad two weeks to index opinion of DK mains you want on this and make a tentative DK chart out of those votes. I'm not sure if you want the scores to actually match, but at the very least it should be doable to have 26 character spreads within a month or so. Allow the people you put in charge of each character some freedom for who they want to include.

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, I'm not going to force people into contributing. It's just not worth it. Hence me doing anything I care about pretty much solo.

 

[Dr Peepee]

If nothing is being forced, should I just figure out these ratios on my own/talk to any other Falcos and come to agreement and submit the ratios in here asap?

 

[Little England]

Your contributions would be great, but it also would be all for not if only a few people contribute and we can't get ratios for other characters.

 

[Marc]

If Peepee is a panel leader for Falco, that's only 25 more. Are there any characters we don't have any mains whatsoever back here for?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Mewtwo? Ness? Bowser?

edit- G&W too unless cactus counts

 

[DtJ Jungle]

Marc can you explain how Brawl Panels work? Is their purpose to contribute to the Match up chart? Was this discussed in this thread and I am just illiterate?

 

[Marc]

If you mean the Brawl Panels group, that was created separately to allow people from not just the BBR to weigh in on and discuss matchups in a subforum made for the project. This resulted in the v2 version, which has been up for some weeks now and will have ongoing updates in the form of writeups. The first one we handled internally, where all panel leaders and panelists were BBR members, but even then we asked for some outside input. It's a lot of procedural stuff to explain, as the biggest point of it was having panels actively discuss against each other to reach a consensus.

Either way, it should be easy enough to have spreads from the perspectives of the mains. I don't know to what extent panels are supposed to interact with each other here, but I foresee that will be problematic considering activity in the MBR is extremely low. At least this game has only 26 characters rather than 37.

I'd be willing to talk to other mains of the characters I play and see if there's some sort of consensus, though for Sheik I think we also have both TecZero and KirbyKaze here. For Peach I could get in touch with Armada rather easily and beyond him I should probably contact people like Vanz. Just let me know.