• 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!

Brawl Matchup Chart v2 Why was the current ratio system implemented in the first place?

Lord Chair

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,229
Location
Cheeseland, Europe
Title. I originally wanted to make a wall of text but I'll do it short and easy. It's been addressed often enough on this subboard but I figured it deserved a thread:

The current system only has 3 effective tiers of difficulty. The way it's put, a matchup is either very very slightly in your advantage making it a +1 or it's very very slightly in your disadvantage, making it a -1.

Completely even matchups should be rare, 0 is now being used in situations that would once be 55:45. A system that discourages very minor advantages is awkward.

A given argument in favor of the current system is that there was no difference between 80-20 and 100-0. While I cannot disagree with this, the current system demolishes whatever flexibility there was. +4 is not a practical ratio, it's the same as the 80-20/100-0 range of matchups: you only apply it to Ganondorf for clarity's sake. No one will ever rate any matchup +4 simply because that'd mean the given matchup is as bad as Ganondorf-Olimar.

That does, however, realistically put +3 at the new (realistically) ultimate level of difficulty. +3 is the hardest ratio that exists because you are forced to ignore +4 due to how excessive that ratio is. As such, it's the ratio that applies to any relevant matchup that is simply not winnable at tournament level play.

That leaves you with only 2 ways to describe an advantage: +1 for 'slight' and +2 for 'true' counters. No other distinction can be made and tons of matchups are put in a category with other matchups even though it's very much apparent that they aren't of the same level of difficulty.

My point being: I understand that it's no longer possible to switch back to the old system at this moment, but I implore the coordinating staff of this project to reconsider going back to the old system if there is to be a new matchup chart in the future.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
I'm assuming the "old" system here is the 21-tiered ratio system where 50:50 is dead even, though it is of note that if you look at the character boards not all of them use the same system either. Furthermore, the character boards tend to make matchup charts in a vacuum, but the goal here is to have both sides of the matchup agree to a score. It's already hard with 9 tiers, so more tiers could very well make for practical issues. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but the full 21 tiers have always seemed very excessive to me. And then some character boards have scores of like 53:47, does that mean we effectively have a 101 tiers? :p

Theoretically speaking there is no real foundation behind the ratio system. Is it supposed to be the odds of winning a game? The entire set? What's the difference between 85:15 and 90:10? There is too much nuance in it on the more lopsided ends of matchups. People don't always mean the same when they say something is 60:40 either. When you look at charts for other fighting games it often goes from 5:5 to 6:4, so if you want something universally easy to understand, you need labels. It's hard to make changes without a well-defined proposal.

What tier are you missing out on right now? If you were to add a tier, how would you label it? An expansion to 11 tiers is possible, but please note that in developing this people were considering as little as 5 or 7. It needs to be very clearly labeled/defined and I personally don't see much room for another gradation denoting how much of an advantage a character has. By the way, as I already told DMG: if you can get your panel to agree on an order within tiers, I will include that in the chart. Once the spreads are complete this is something panels can attempt on their own.

Finally, I agree that some spreads are rather heavy on "even" matchups, but that has more to do with the people using it than the system itself. It's a logical compromise if both sides think they win by a little and as the metagame advances it's likely to be more ironed out. Other than that I think the biggest pitfall is trying to translate scores from one scale to the next, which is why I'd suggest sticking to the labels and keeping your overall spread in mind.
 

Nike.

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
5,823
Location
SA-Town, Texas
I hear what Chair is saying.

For Marth/Zss, the ratio was switched to even. A week later, I hung out with Shlike, one of the panelists for Zss. When talking about the MU, he agreed that the MU was 55:45 Marth, which he equates to even. I found this disturbing.

This example has happened quite a few times over certain MU's and I personally think it's the reason why there's so many characters that believe they go even with Marth now: people consider the 45:55-55:45 range as even. I know that the goal is not to translate the ratios into our current system, but many do anyways, causing this rift.

Idk if I explained it well, but I've seen many on the panels bringing up the same problem.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
If 55:45 is to mean small advantage, it's +1. If it's to mean even, it's even. Like, in my book it's not even if it's not 50:50, but that's why ratios suck. You literally only have to answer the question whether a matchup is even or a small/medium/large advantage/unwinnable one way or the other. If one side has a small advantage, it's not even, unless that advantage is so marginal/situational that it might as well be even, but that's not something I'm willing to touch and panels will have to figure it out between the two of them.
 

Nike.

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
5,823
Location
SA-Town, Texas
A lot of people consider 55:45 as +1/-1 too :\
I think 45:55 or 55:45 as even is wrong, if that's what your saying. We're not supposed to translate the seperate ratio's together, but 51:49 or higher is still a slight advantage, which is why I'd automatically consider it a +1 overall.

Completely even matchups should be rare, 0 is now being used in situations that would once be 55:45. A system that discourages very minor advantages is awkward.
^ That I completely agree with.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
I get what Marc's saying. There isn't a need for a real distinction of harder MU's where what's the difference between 85:15 and 9:1. BUT, that system/scale allows for greater precision in the areas that do matter more, like any MU ranging from 5:5 to 7:3. Most MU's in the game fall somewhere inbetween that range. Being able to be precise in that range is what to aim for imo.

5 ratings encompass the 5:5 to 7:3 range if you use 5 point increments. You get the 3 "easy" established marks to use: 5/5 , 6/4 , 7/3. These are fairly universal to everyone and hard to misinterpret. With the guidance of these "checkpoints", you can then further go into MU's that fall inbetween these marks.


Sure, you could have plenty of people argue over these 5 point differences, BUT say you get into a situation where 1 side wants -1 the other side wants -2. The MU doesn't look like a regular -1, and not yes as hard as a -2. In the current system, if you're "off target" from what the MU really is, it's by quite the margin. Full point difference. But if you go down the middle, -1.5 if you will, even if the MU is truly on either end, you're only a half point wrong anyways. If the MU is really -1, oh well you rated it half point higher. If it's really a -2, oh well you're only a half point wrong. If it's really in the middle, you've achieved what you wanted here where you might not have been able to in the full point system.


I don't care which system we use for the next chart, BUT I think we should have at LEAST 4 points for MU's in the even to hard counter range. If you want to group 55:45 with even that's fine. Give people the ability to clearly distinguish between the most likely ratings (anything up to hard counter, cause any MU past that isn't worth getting into finer detail over 90 % of the time). Soft Counter, Med/inbetween, Hard counter. Less confusion over number interpretations like where does 55:45 go, where does 65:35 go, etc, and more detail on MU's that "fall in the cracks".
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Premium
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
I considered everything in the zero category 50:50.

if it was 45:55 to 40:60 I considered it a +1/-1
if it was 40:60 to 35:65 I considered it a +2/-2
if it was 35:65 to 30:70 I considered it a +3/-3
if it was over 30:70 I considered it a +4/-4

That was my mindset when doing this the first time and this time.
 

Red Arremer

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
11,439
Location
Vienna
The thing with the xx:xx system is, that noone has the same definition for the numbers. The system we are using are just symbols given to the MU definitions of:
- Even
- Slight dis/advantage
- Solid dis/advantage
- Big dis/advantage
- LOLOLOL
 

Ripple

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
9,631
more people seem to have a problem with this more so than the last one because like DMG said some match ups fall inbetween numbers.

the system we have now is too vague imo
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
The other system isnt all to great either.

The system everyone seems to be advocating for is similar to logorithms.

For instance given the function:
log(x) = y

x = 1...10...100...1000
y = 0...1......2.......3

Where as you get closer to even the disctinctions become more apparent. Granted it would need fine tuning, and this isnt something I think would actually work since it becomes difficult to understand, which means any system we'd use would be imperfect.
 

#HBC | ZoZo

Shocodoro Blagshidect
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
9,799
Location
Land of Nether
I talked with Marc at a tournament and had the same issue.

I see 55:45 as a 0, because it's so negligible that it's hardly worth mentioning in a matchup. I guess it translates to a very very slight advantage... which is +1, I guess?
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
The thing with the xx:xx system is, that noone has the same definition for the numbers. The system we are using are just symbols given to the MU definitions of:
- Even
- Slight dis/advantage
- Solid dis/advantage
- Big dis/advantage
- LOLOLOL
You can add THESE labels to ANY system. Red means bad, green means neutral, orange means solid, etc.

100 point system. 5:5 is even 8:2 is LOLOLOL etc

It's not hard to assume general labels to any kind of system used. You'd have to explain what orange or 65:35 or frown face or large red X means anyways with a general "this rating means bad, this rating means good, etc"



In the 100 point system, there are 3 widely understood ratings I don't think anyone could **** up. 50:50 , 60:40 , and 70:30. That encompasses a fair bit of MU's for this game. Now, adding 5 point increments between these 3 lets people further distinguish what a MU feels like. There are plenty of MU's where "yeah one side has this small advantage like slightly better on stages or slightly stronger edge guarding" that you can rate 55:45, and plenty of MU's waddling the line between soft and hard counter to label them 65:35.


Basically, my point is that the sheer number of MU's we have, along with varying influences like stage list, make it not only feasible but desirable for us to rate them on a more precise scale. It doesn't have to be so precise that you use each individual point in the 100 point scale, but imo enough where you can make valid comparisons and decisions on where MU's fall.

Whatever system or scale we use, should have enough points to signify Even, very small advantage, soft counter, med counter/inbetween, hard counter. No overlapping ratings (+1 is 55:45 up to 6:4, +2 is 6:4 up to 65:35, etc) or bumping characters up/down based on whether they feel more like a "0 or a 1" "1 or a 2" "2 or a 3" since characters in that spot would have an identifiable rating to correspond to.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
I think the issue .joel was bringing up is through every system theres an issue of trying to standardize their meaning. The more increments you use the greater amount of interpretations they can have, and the more difficult it becomes to reach agreement. People could agree on the MU but disagree on the ratio simply because they have a different view of what the ratio means. Its a give and take of accuracy vs practicality.

One way around that is to define the system around the MUs themselves and as they relate to one another as opposed to some objective definition of "slight advantage", "advantage", "strong advantage" that can be intepreted any way.
 

Red Arremer

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
11,439
Location
Vienna
Exactly what Cassio says.

If we're already having trouble finding consensus in discussions with this 9-tiered system, imagine how hard it would be if we went with the 100-point system.
 

Ripple

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
9,631
the 50:50/55:45 way is easier for me
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,742
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
I considered everything in the zero category 50:50.

if it was 45:55 to 40:60 I considered it a +1/-1
if it was 40:60 to 35:65 I considered it a +2/-2
if it was 35:65 to 30:70 I considered it a +3/-3
if it was over 30:70 I considered it a +4/-4

That was my mindset when doing this the first time and this time.

This is what people should be doing. Neither system is perfect (and both are fairly subjective), but at least the ratio system is universally understood/used. It makes more sense to just go with ratios rather than differentiate ourselves for no reason other than to differentiate ourselves... our weird number system is stupid and unnecessary.
 

Red Arremer

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
11,439
Location
Vienna
This is what people should be doing. Neither system is perfect (and both are fairly subjective), but at least the ratio system is universally understood/used. It makes more sense to just go with ratios rather than differentiate ourselves for no reason other than to differentiate ourselves... our weird number system is stupid and unnecessary.
Our number system is not stupid at all, quite the contrary. One of the main points is, the ratio system is NOT universally understood.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
and it's universally understood that 0 is 55:45, that soft counters are +1 or +2 in this system?
 

Lord Chair

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,229
Location
Cheeseland, Europe
Exactly what Cassio says.

If we're already having trouble finding consensus in discussions with this 9-tiered system, imagine how hard it would be if we went with the 100-point system.
The reason we have problems with the current system is because it isn't nuanced enough. Panels don't like to put a matchup in a certain tier simply because that'd mean it'd be on the same level of difficulty as another character in that tier.
 

Red Arremer

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
11,439
Location
Vienna
and it's universally understood that 0 is 55:45, that soft counters are +1 or +2 in this system?
You are forcing numbers from an arbitrary system into this one.
Is 55:45 even? If yes, then it's Even (aka 0). If not, then it's something else, most likely slight advantage, right?
And "soft counter" is another arbitrary term. Does a soft counter need to have a slight advantage, or a solid advantage, to be a soft counter? If it's a slight advantage, then a soft counter is +1. If it's a solid advantage, then it's a +2. On that note, what is a soft counter in the ratio system?

I don't understand why people are saying "this is soooooo hard", when it's even harder to find a representation (and consensus) in a more detailed system.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
If you want the labels to be as correct as possible and the least amount of confusion possible, they cannot be "ranges" or broad. If Soft advantage encompasses 55:45 to 6:4, it should be the absolute only number that has this range. Every other number should be set in stone absolute.

+2 should be specifically 65:35 MU's. Stuff that falls inbetween hard counter and soft counter.

+3 should be specifically 7:3 MU's. Not a big problem here, most +3's already fit this category.

Because otherwise if you do these "Mid advantage could be anything from 6:4 to 65:35" THAT'S where you get confusion, mislabeling, and weird stuff where Marth and Peach end up in the same difficulty tier despite not being the same at all. Or if they DO get separated tier wise, the characters around them now feel like they should be split as well. Put Marth as a -2 vs Wario, now all of a sudden Dedede doesn't feel that special or weird if he was moved up to -3 despite not being that kind of MU.

Have whatever label, rating, or scale in place. But don't give individual labels "ranges". Giving ranges to +1 or +2 makes it harder to pinpoint and relate to what MU's are around each other. There should be no "1 ish or 2 ish", which gets thrown around because there isn't a harder definition for those labels. The numbers "dip" into each other.


Joel: There are MU's with similar difficulties getting DIFFERENT numbers not because "Marth is harder than Peach by 5 points" but because "well we think +1 is soft counter while those guys think +2 is soft counter". That should not exist, but does because the labels in this system were intentionally meant to be easier to agree to because they have broader interpretations. At the same time, people at the same "general" conclusion of how hard a MU is can find labeling it the hard part. There are soft counters across the MU spread labeled -2 on here, while some soft counters (of the same difficulty) are labeled -1. Hard counters ranging from -2 to -3 despite being the same comparatively.


The ratio system has WELL established numbers and labels

The 3 flagship ratings range from 5:5, 6:4, and 7:3. 6:4 in the ratio system is soft counter. Always has been. Even for other fighting games it's usually labeled that.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
But if even is 5:5, +2 is 6:4 and +3 is 7:3, aren't those flagship ratings already established here as well? Assuming we instead have 11 or 13 tiers, how would you label them?
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
That IS assuming they are flagship here, which I don't feel is the case when you have people labeling 55:45's as both 0 and 1, and soft counters as both +1 and +2's. Or at least, if they are flagship they are a bit too flexible to where 2 different labels can end up rating the same MU. Soft counters being in 2 different places is a big one imo.



If a MU is clearly one of the "3" pillars (5:5, 6:4, 7:3), all MU's that relate to that across the spectrum should be rated the same. EVERY soft counter should be a +2 if we decide +2 is for soft counters. But we don't have that. We have soft counter MU's across the board, that are basically similar to each other in difficulty, finding their way in more than 1 "label". People who think +1 is for soft counters only, people who think +1 is 55:45 ranging on up to 6:4, people who think soft counters also go up to +2, and people that think +2 is only for soft counters. See what I'm saying?



IMO for this system, these should be the ratings:

0- EITHER simply 5:5 or also include 55:45 as basically even (if this included 55:45, then +1 is ONLY for soft counter MU's)

1- EITHER simply 6:4 or also include 55:45 as basically "small advantage" (if this included 55:45, then 0 is ONLY for dead even MU's)

2- 65:35 MU's. Matchups that fall inbetween soft and hard counter.

3- 7:3 MU's. Hard counters.

4- Anything harder than that (which likely does not need any further precision because the MU is reaching such an absurd threshold)


A lot of people would group 55:45 MU's with either even or small advantage instead of its own increment *which is fine*



Sure, the argument is that "you can't correlate those ratios to this system" or "going that way is even harder to come to an agreement on" but at a certain point I'd rather have more debate and argument over what to rate a MU than the decision being simply "do we win or not" because you definitely can simplify the process down further if the main problem is not having agreements. If the only ratings are "even, win, lose", you wouldn't have more than a handful of disagreements throughout the total cast "We're even no we have a small advantage which means technically we're winning etc"



Labels either have to be precise and strict, or if they are broader and include ranges they cannot dip into each other. If +1 means 55:45 on up to 6:4, you should NOT see or expect any 6:4 in +2. At that point, +2 would continue up the scale uninterrupted and be something like 65:35 up to 7:3.+3 would then be 75:25 up to 8:2. MU's can be grouped up in that relative way and it makes sense (and I feel THIS is what the new system wanted to do), but not in a way where labels extend and dip into each other where you can find the same MU difficulty slipping into multiple labels/numbers (which is what ended up happening imo). Labels can have ranges, but not ranges that slip, fall, dip, or creep into other labels as well. Otherwise it gets harder to look at things in relative terms and it gets harder to objectively say "Well what DOES +2 mean when I see similar MU's in +1 and/or similar MU's in +3?
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
But then it seems like you would keep the same amount of scores and add a guide for people who still think in ratios.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
You could, yes. However the process we as panels have gone through rating wise was not as defined as that. There are plenty of MU's across the board that depending on how each panel saw the scale, would be off mark if we corresponded a rating to it. Like 55:45 MU's people rated as 0 if we decided that no, 55:45 will all be +1. Those MU's would then have to be +1. Soft counters found in the +2 range would have to get bumped down if we agreed that soft counters are specifically +1 mu's. Etc. Adding a "rating" guide to it is fine, but it doesn't fix instances where we might have been off target prior to this point. To fix that we'd have to go back or get people to talk about it real quick or something and change them accordingly based on this.

The 55:45 MU's you could leave alone and say they are either 0 or +1, but basically very small advantages either way. Soft counters on up though would definitely have to be more specific though.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
*I know, more work for you/other people Marc. Not exactly a kind of idea one wants to hear near the gathering of the end of a project like this lol. But it would make it more consistent imo and be wholly worth it.*
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
I agree with chairs original post btw. Im not a fan of the 100-point system, but +4's and+3's are broad groups for the relatively few amount of MUs that occur there. Not to say they shouldnt exist, but when it comes time to label distinctions between the narrow area of where the large bulk of MU's occur theres only 3 real categories left (0, 1, and 2).

Given the large amount of MUs that occur between 0 - 2, people want greater distinctions. I think an easy solution would be to simply add one more number, and then explain +5's to be more encompassing than the other categories (like what DMG said). Even though thered be hardly any MUs with +5 it would give greater clarity to the other 4. I think that would resolve a lot of complaints.
 

Lord Chair

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,229
Location
Cheeseland, Europe
In response to the given argument that a more nuanced system will also make it 'even more difficult to agree to a ratio': if either party concedes to the other party, the odds of the MU being put down entirely wrong is lessened. It makes less of a difference if one party thinks it's 65-35 and the other thinks it's 70-30 than if one party says it's -2 and the other calls it -3. It compensates for a lot of issues you see in the contemporary MU discussions.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
Well yeah, thats the general issue. Its a matter of accuracy vs practicality.

Not to say that the system couldnt use a little more improvement on accuracy, but the 100 point system is an overload.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Premium
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
This is what people should be doing. Neither system is perfect (and both are fairly subjective), but at least the ratio system is universally understood/used. It makes more sense to just go with ratios rather than differentiate ourselves for no reason other than to differentiate ourselves... our weird number system is stupid and unnecessary.
I agree with this, except the last line.

Any system we use is subjective therefore I find it hard to say which is better or worse.

45:55 - 40:60 is +1/-1

but what if it's 50:50 - 45:55
Technically if you want to be nit picky, no match up is truly 50:50 but it's labeled as that to be precise over accurate.

If it is under 45:55 it's not a significantly noticeable advantage. I'm not going to list 52:48 or something like that because it's adds more problems to agreement and issues of accuracy over precision.

I understand the issues overall, it;s just for this and even with ratios I'm trying to be precise over accurate.
 

#HBC | ZoZo

Shocodoro Blagshidect
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
9,799
Location
Land of Nether
Like for ZSS
Wario/Snake would be something like 55:45 in the numerical system
but here that translates into +1
but the advantage is not even that notable
so it sucks.
 

teluoborg

Smash Otter
Premium
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
4,060
Location
Paris, France
NNID
teloutre
I don't get why everybody focuses on numbers when people don't even have the same definition for slight/solid/noticeable/whatever.

The problem will persist as long as we don't find a way to define those.
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Premium
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
In those cases it is subjective if someone thinks it is even or a slight advantage.

I'm taking about 51:49 vs 55:45, one is there and clear one is so small it's not worth listing.

:phone:
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,975
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Well the easiest way of defining terms is through relativity. Hey this MU is harder than a soft counter, but easier than a hard counter. Hey this is close to even, but one side has this small edge like stages or somethin.

Regardless of what label you use: colors, numbers, ratios, pictures, etc. You need enough relative "points" that are consistent (consistent being the main thing) to make sure you don't have MU's with relatively same difficulty getting different labels, or MU's with relatively different difficulty getting the same rating. Having more points to relate to also means you can further distinguish exactly how hard MU's are. You don't need to go overboard in this area, but take this for example:


What if there were only 3 points or labels? Even, Winning, Losing. Just about everyone could agree on MU's in those terms. Sure x character loses to y. MU chart would be done in 2 days. But at the same time, you would not be able to tell the difference in difficulty for MU's in win lose category. Is Dedede vs DK the same as Wario vs Peach? No it isn't, but they would both have the same rating for better or for worse.


The current system is fine as far as having enough points (you can make the argument that 55:45 needs its own point or not, don't really care). BUT, the current labels are not consistent enough or not interpreted consistently enough. Go ask plenty of panels their opinions on what each number means in this system. You will get a broad number of different responses. Some numbers have "ranges" on where they extend, some are absolute, etc.

You don't have to correlate or link MU ratios to these labels. BUT the labels should have easier, stricter definitions so it's not as easy to be off target in appropriately labeling a MU based on different interpretations. If you say "Hey soft counter MU's are specifically reserved for +1", then you aren't gonna see any soft counter MU's anywhere else BUT as +1. That kind of definitive base for the labels is slightly missing or was.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
Well, when I tried to bring the term "soft counter" into it, I was replied to with people having different definitions of that also. >_> So I guess we'd have to define that too.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
Well the easiest way of defining terms is through relativity. Hey this MU is harder than a soft counter, but easier than a hard counter. Hey this is close to even, but one side has this small edge like stages or somethin.
lol, this is what I said a few pages ago. Suffice to say I agree. A system thats internally defined is much easier to understand and reach consensus with than an attempt to find objective meaning.

ex: we could create system with terms and definitions, and attempt to assign characters to those terms. i.e. I create the terms hard counter, then toss everyone into the group I think fits the definition.

OR

we could list character difficulty from top to bottom, group them together, then define the terms based on the groups. i.e. I dont know if Fox should be called a hard counter or soft counter nor do I care, what I do know is he's as hard as shiek and there are 2 to 3 categories of characters more difficult than them.
 
Top Bottom