Melee Match-Up Chart (NTSC) [Update 008 - 09.09.28]

N64 · Oct 1, 2009

I'm to an extent with skler on this, though I don't understand the last paragraph. Pika vs pick-a-high-tier-other-than-falcon is pika loses all matches. Maybe 1-9 for spacies. The high tiers just have too many tools with which to beat pika. Some have more than others yes, but they should all be winning all the time against pika.

Also, I know we are assuming a 'high level of skill' in each player and equal skill in relation to eachother for these matchups, but are we also assuming that each player is equally knowledgable of the matchup? It only matters for the low tier vs high tier matches really, where this often isn't the case, but I wanted to know. Yes or no on this changes things slightly.

Fortress | Sveet · Oct 1, 2009

but it totally brushes under the table the stuff those characters CAN do.

in SF the game thing works because its 1 stock matches. if you make 1 mistake and the lower tier character can exploit it and get a win. i dont think this system specifically works for smash because there are 4 stocks per game. if you wanted to convert it over, go by stocks or simply stick to advantage rating.

cause really, at the highest level of play, slight disadvantage isn't 6-4 game wise. put a sheik and a marth of equal skill and top level play against each other, and sheik SHOULD win them all. if she doesnt it means that either the stage effected the match up, or sheik was making a lot more mistakes than marth.

Vts · Oct 1, 2009

i mostly know the IC match ups and can help with that but other than that i'm not 100%.

plus the IC board u can pretty much see what the % are just by looking in there

.

and haven't read any other posts yet beside main pots so meh to sleepy.

but few that i see that might be little off are IC vs fox instead of 7/3 fox its more of 6/4 fox.

link is a 7/3 IC instead of 6/4 IC

and falcon is 50/50 with IC instead of 60/40 falcon.

peach is either right or 9/1 cus its just crazy how bad it is for IC.

samus might be 8/2.

other than that its pretty dead on with IC.

also on your then TGM list Dr.mario has only 2 even matches not 3 i noticed it having an extra person when adding it up.

HawaiianJigglyPuff · Oct 1, 2009

N64 said:
I'm to an extent with skler on this, though I don't understand the last paragraph. Pika vs pick-a-high-tier-other-than-falcon is pika loses all matches. Maybe 1-9 for spacies. The high tiers just have too many tools with which to beat pika. Some have more than others yes, but they should all be winning all the time against pika.

Also, I know we are assuming a 'high level of skill' in each player and equal skill in relation to eachother for these matchups, but are we also assuming that each player is equally knowledgable of the matchup? It only matters for the low tier vs high tier matches really, where this often isn't the case, but I wanted to know. Yes or no on this changes things slightly.

yeah dude excellent point

plus, how high a level are we talking??

mango level? so like mango vs. mango if it were possible or like nes noob vs. nes noob

or like me vs. me

Skler · Oct 1, 2009

Tr3MoR said:
Low vs Top tiers at high levels of play basically is unwinnable. The disadvantages the characters have to overcome is just too large. Maybe they should be 10-0 the system being used is the # of games won system. But this isn't about making matchups seem unwinnable, it is about being realistic. Realistic means that at high levels of play the low tier characters will win 0 games. It basically is unwinnable in the conditions this chart specifies. If you have ever played Marth-Link, or Sheik-Link (my two mains), then it is obvious the advantage is huge. I have played much better players than I using low tier characters and won simply because I can exploit their weaknesses.

The problem is having it at 10-0 makes it appear completely unwinnable. 10-0 sounds like "you will never win, ever." Large disadvantage sounds like "you must be this much better/have this much more knowledge of the matchup to win."

Numbers are cold and final.

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

I think you guys need to ignore tourney stats and placements for this, and just use raw evidence in an actual match.

You can't say "oh this low tier main should be 0-10 because he'd lose against dashizwiz's falco" because players like shiz are miles ahead in skill than other people. One of the reasons why pros are so good is because they switch to higher tier characters at one point, and then they continue to get better off from there. You guys should just imagine that two people are playing, say, a tournament set or a MM, they're equal in skill, and try to provide logic why one player would win x amount of games over another.

Also, stop arguing over the 10-0 thing. All it means is that if both players equal in skill play, that the player with the advantage SHOULD win 10 matches over the other player. There could be numerous factors why this wouldn't happen, like the advantaged player choking real hard, or the disadvantaged player having a ton of experience in that matchup, but that doesn't matter. It's just assuming that under regular conditions, what's most likely to happen is that one player will win 10 matches over the other, whether it's a 1-stock or a 4-stock or whatever.

Skler · Oct 1, 2009

Then Link vs Fox, Falco, Falcon and Sheik should all be 10-0. He should be losing all the games vs those characters. You can throw Marth up there too if you're assuming nobody chokes.

The problem with one winning x amount of games is whoever has an advantage should ultimately win every single game. Why would the person with an advantage lose 4 out of 10 games if they're equal skill? The advantage should tip the scales of each game in their favor. This becomes really obvious in the high tier vs low tier matchups. Link vs Sheik should result in a pretty crushing loss each time, but Link vs Marth should still end in losses even if they're only one stocks compared to the three stocks against Sheik. Yet this chart would rate them the same difficultly even though one matchup is clearly worse.

A chart that doesn't differentiate between Link vs Sheik and Link vs Marth is silly. Smash Brothers isn't street fighter, it should use a different system. 4 stock games are way too consistent, it takes at least 4 mistakes to lose in smash. The same does not hold true for Street Fighter.

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

Peach vs IC is bad for IC.

Skler · Oct 1, 2009

I concur!!!

Fortress | Sveet · Oct 1, 2009

Skler said:
Then Link vs Fox, Falco, Falcon and Sheik should all be 10-0. He should be losing all the games vs those characters. You can throw Marth up there too if you're assuming nobody chokes.

The problem with one winning x amount of games is whoever has an advantage should ultimately win every single game. Why would the person with an advantage lose 4 out of 10 games if they're equal skill? The advantage should tip the scales of each game in their favor. This becomes really obvious in the high tier vs low tier matchups. Link vs Sheik should result in a pretty crushing loss each time, but Link vs Marth should still end in losses even if they're only one stocks compared to the three stocks against Sheik. Yet this chart would rate them the same difficultly even though one matchup is clearly worse.

A chart that doesn't differentiate between Link vs Sheik and Link vs Marth is silly. Smash Brothers isn't street fighter, it should use a different system. 4 stock games are way too consistent, it takes at least 4 mistakes to lose in smash. The same does not hold true for Street Fighter.

exactly! this is why i would rather see an A SA E SD D chart instead of numbers.

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

Skler said:
That's why I said at least 4!

The only matches were people should die in one combo are like...fox dittos, Marth vs Space animal or Jigglypuff vs anyone.

I edited post because I realized I was being dumb

Skler · Oct 1, 2009

Now I had to edit mine to make it on topic!

HawaiianJigglyPuff · Oct 1, 2009

Skler and Sveet are both right but the number system just looks prettier in a chart.
Everyone should just think of it as slight advantage, advantage, etc.

lordvaati · Oct 1, 2009

really, it's like this:

-very high advantage 10-9
-high advantage-8-7
-slight advantage-6
-even-5
-slight disadvantage-4
-high disadvantage-3-2
-very high disadvantage1-0

like for example, Mario would be even with DK, have a slight advantage over Pika, have a slight disadvantage over Fox, and have a high disadvange over Marth. this is basically the gist of it, right?

N64 · Oct 1, 2009

x After Dawn x said:
You can't say "oh this low tier main should be 0-10 because he'd lose against dashizwiz's falco" because players like shiz are miles ahead in skill than other people. One of the reasons why pros are so good is because they switch to higher tier characters at one point, and then they continue to get better off from there. You guys should just imagine that two people are playing, say, a tournament set or a MM, they're equal in skill, and try to provide logic why one player would win x amount of games over another.

We don't have to be talking vs. DaShizWiz's falco. Were players able to play against themselves (providing a completely evenly skillied opponent) then Chad's fox or jigglypuff should beat Chad's pikachu 10 out of 10 matches. Axe's falco should beat Axe's Pikachu 10 out of 10 matches. Etc.

When the ability difference between two characters becomes large enough, I claim that it doesn't just mean they'll win less games. It means they'll lose each match by a roughly larger margin. Pika should be consistently two stocked my some characters and consistently three stocked by others, but both would be a '0-10' matchup if we're going by games won in a 10 game set.

Ryzol_ · Oct 1, 2009

Matchups should be based on a 3game set with counterpicks and all that, because that's what people actually play in tournaments and money matches. You can keep the same numbers, they just need to mean how many sets out of 10 that character wins.

NES n00b · Oct 1, 2009

If that were to happen above, there would be so many 0-10s.

pockyD · Oct 1, 2009

why a bo3? why not a bo5? what stages are legal or banned? is the first stage random or stage striking?

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

Vts said:
but few that i see that might be little off are IC vs fox instead of 7/3 fox its more of 6/4 fox.

link is a 7/3 IC instead of 6/4 IC

and falcon is 50/50 with IC instead of 60/40 falcon.

peach is either right or 9/1 cus its just crazy how bad it is for IC.

samus might be 8/2.

other than that its pretty dead on with IC.

Link - Why? iirc Wobbles and Skler both agree that Link can hold his own vs IC if he does nothing but drop bombs and play super duper safe the entire game.

Peach is gay.

Samus - Why? We just had 2 ICs (Fly, Nintendude) saying that it's not that bad at all.

Falcon - That seems to be fairly consistent with a lot of the ICs. We may have to ask the Falcons if they agree with that soon.

Fox - I think it's bad, but I see where you guys are coming from.

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

Ryzol_ said:
Matchups should be based on a 3game set with counterpicks and all that, because that's what people actually play in tournaments and money matches. You can keep the same numbers, they just need to mean how many sets out of 10 that character wins.

First of all, if that were to happen, it would probably be set as a bo5, but that doesn't work for many reasons. Really, how does a 7-3 translate in a bo5? 3.5-1.5? No. How does a 5-5 work in a bo5 between two players that are theoretically equal in skill? Theoretically, the would both have to have the same number of won matches. It just doesn't work dude.

Just imagine, though, that if there were enough counterpicks for 10 games, then this is what the result would be.

Divinokage · Oct 1, 2009

KirbyKaze said:
Peach vs IC is bad for IC.

Ya but its definitely not 9-1 lol.

pockyD · Oct 1, 2009

i'm still not completely sure what 9-1 means, but i'd easily expect a peach main to win at least 90% of the sets vs. a comparably skilled IC player

Comrade · Oct 1, 2009

pockyD said:
i'm still not completely sure what 9-1 means, but i'd easily expect a peach main to win at least 90% of the sets vs. a comparably skilled IC player

Try not to think of its as the peach player winning 9 out of 10 matches.

It's more of a "Peach has the advantage 90% of the time" kind of thing... i think...

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

If we're doing it that way, it should be 10-0 because Peach has the advantage 100% of the time unless she's being infinited in some way.

I guess infinites = worth one point?

Kyu Puff · Oct 1, 2009

I agree with Skler on the numbering system, any significant advantage would mean a character theoretically should win every game.

9-1 should mean it's nearly unwinnable, 8-2 is a large advantage. Peach vs ICs probably falls under the latter.

Comrade · Oct 1, 2009

KirbyKaze said:
If we're doing it that way, it should be 10-0 because Peach has the advantage 100% of the time unless she's being infinited in some way.

I guess infinites = worth one point?

New theory: If peach has 8 apples, and the IC have one apple.... wait, where the hell did the tenth apple go...

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

Oh, Nana...

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

Comrade said:
New theory: If peach has 8 apples, and the IC have one apple.... wait, where the hell did the tenth apple go...

Well, normally I'd say Green Greens, but there's quite a few apples there, and if there's only ten apples, then either Peach or Popo are bluffing about how many apples they have.

Hmm...

worldjem7 · Oct 1, 2009

Skler, why do you have a problem with this now? You didn't seem to have a problem with it earlier when you were discussing Mewtwo vs Link with Taj.

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

I guess I was right a long time ago when I said Pikachu had a better time vs Falco than Fox. =D

Falco's matchups look good, but can somebody (like Taj) explain to me where Mewtwo gets that one game off of Falco? Can't Falco just laser camp all day? Mewtwo can definitely teleport past them, but then he just gets hit by more once he lands and doesn't really accomplish much. I mean, once I think about it in theory, the matchup doesn't seem like it'd be 10-0 **** if the Mewtwo's good enough, but I'd just like to know anyway.

Comrade · Oct 1, 2009

x After Dawn x said:
I guess I was right a long time ago when I said Pikachu had a better time vs Falco than Fox. =D

Falco's matchups look good, but can somebody (like Taj) explain to me where Mewtwo gets that one game off of Falco? Can't Falco just laser camp all day? Mewtwo can definitely teleport past them, but then he just gets hit by more once he lands and doesn't really accomplish much. I mean, once I think about it in theory, the matchup doesn't seem like it'd be 10-0 **** if the Mewtwo's good enough, but I'd just like to know anyway.

Maybe it's saying something along the lines of "a mediocre falco can beat a good mewtwo"

See what i mean?

Honestly, i dont think they actually mean anything, they are just giving a vague idea of what the match's end-probability will be.

worldjem7 · Oct 1, 2009

For those who continue to debate the format, please refer to the first post.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=234220

From now on, anyone who posts anything in this thread refuting the format (as opposed to sending your complaint directly to me) will be put on my ignore list and will have no further say in the making of the chart.

john! · Oct 1, 2009

Really good IC players can do the handoff on Peach (I've seen Wobbles do it a few times, check out the end of this video for example). Part of the reason IC's players fear Peach is because she can't be chaingrabbed easily, but since we're talking about the top level here, I think it should be a bit more even (70-30 Peach), especially because Peach's grab evasion game is less than stellar.

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

john9blue said:
because Peach's grab evasion game is less than stellar.

Your opinion is now invalid.

I dislike the bo10 format because it doesn't show ANY distinctions because the top 4 or so basically 10-0 everyone lower than mid tier and there is a difference in the difficulties.

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

Comrade said:
Maybe it's saying something along the lines of "a mediocre falco can beat a good mewtwo"

See what i mean?

Honestly, i dont think they actually mean anything, they are just giving a vague idea of what the match's end-probability will be.

Do you people even read my posts before you quote me to answer them? You're basically restating what I just said, I was asking why the matchup isn't worse than what it is now. Also, you should learn how to read the OP of a thread before even posting in it.

That being said, my question still stands. It'd help if I got some details on the matchup specifics instead of something like "a mediocre falco can beat a good mewtwo." The matchup seems interesting, but I unfortunately haven't played against a good Mewtwo before.

unknown522 · Oct 1, 2009

john9blue said:
Really good IC players can do the handoff on Peach (I've seen Wobbles do it a few times, check out the end of this video for example). Part of the reason IC's players fear Peach is because she can't be chaingrabbed easily, but since we're talking about the top level here, I think it should be a bit more even (70-30 Peach), especially because Peach's grab evasion game is less than stellar.

What are you talking about?

x After Dawn x · Oct 1, 2009

Yeah, I don't get how floating in the air for half of the match isn't "less than stellar" for evading grabs...?

Nintendude · Oct 1, 2009

I have a different way to interpret the 1-10 format. Imagine an infinite stock match between Marth and Jiggs (currently 6-4). 6-4 would mean that, on average, for every 6 stocks that Marth takes off, Jiggly will take off 4 stocks.

imo this is a much more logical interpretation because the best of 10 interpretation seems to fail or become overly arbitrary with **** matchups. Also, the old interpretation doesn't really take into account a character barely losing over and over (which is also difficult to conceptualize with the best of 10 interpretation), while my proposal does so in a very simple manner.

Thoughts?

btw, this is totally a legit post. I'm debating the interpretation, not the format.

Also, are we assuming Wobbling is legal (as stated in the SBR suggested rule set last time I checked)? If so, that nullifies any points about what grab combos work on what characters.

KirbyKaze · Oct 1, 2009

x After Dawn x said:
Yeah, I don't get how floating in the air for half of the match isn't "less than stellar" for evading grabs...?

I wasn't even thinking of that.

I was just thinking about FC aerial --> D-smash and then if ICs' shield gets pierced then Nana automatically dies because Peach can chain FC Nairs on her until she dies because Nana doesn't tech or DI.

And since FC aerials on their own can't be shield grabbed, a D-smash that commonly shield-pierces and FC aerials to lead into that D-smash on their block is a pretty nifty system.

But floating is great too. I can't believe I forgot about that.

otg · Oct 1, 2009

Uhoh, Nintendude is about to get blocked for stating a valid opinion. Our canadian overlords are ruthless.

Anyone else remember when this thread was somewhat legitimate?

Melee Match-Up Chart (NTSC) [Update 008 - 09.09.28]

Smash Champion

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Smash Champion

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Smash Master

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Smash Master

▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Smash Legend

Smash Journeyman

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Journeyman

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Some guy

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Information

Network