Character Match-ups: Who has the best/worst?

[ChrisTheCom]

Because Metaknight has very good matchups, he will be seen a lot in competitive circles. Hence, it is more valuable for a character to have a good matchup with Metaknight than it is for them to **** a character with generally bad matchups, because nobody would use that character anyway.

Even though D3 has better matchups overall, he is still considered worse than Snake, because Snake has better matchups with the characters that matter most (Falco, MK, G-Dub)

Completely agree. The scale worked for the different tiers is definitely suitable, although a more refined method of alotting points for advantages/disadvantages, ie, rather than 2 for large difference, 1 for small, have a more spread range, eg 5 points for 100-0 (not that there are any), 4 for 90-10...... until 1 for 60-40.

An even more detailed scale that includes 55-45 matchups would make the final results even more accurate. I think that the idea of negatives for disadvantages also works, as it shows more clearly who is generally good/bad/god against the cast.

The reversiblilty of each matchup also needs to be considered for the tiers. eg MK vs Captain Falcon. Because of Captain Falcon's disadvantage against a top tier he would have a two times multiplier against a negative point score, whilt MK would have a one times multiplier for a positive result.

Perhaps consider a 0.5x multipler for the really, really low characters, just to correlate with the tier list and place less emphasis on these matchups.

 

[Dragoomba]

Wow, this actually made me realize that lower tier characters do have more of a chance, and Metaknight is just gay.

Actually, I already realized that.

 

[MrEh]

Bowser no longer has 5 bad matchups. He now has 7.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=211975

GO BOWSER! (of course, this really doesn't prove anything until all the matchups are done...)

 

[Winston]

uhh if you weight it, like saying a character is better because they are good against metaknight (diddy for isntance) then aren't you making a tier list?

I thought a matchup list would indicate who does the best against the cast, not who does the best to tournament viable characters.

I mean I guess you could just make a list of who has the best matchups against the cast... but that information would be totally irrelevant ><

Besides people would try to read it like a tier list anyway...

Also, what do people think about weighting based on Character Rankings List values instead of arbitrary numbers? It seems like the best course of action that doesn't involve a computer model. (Or solving a linear program with 39 variables. ><)

 

[DanGR]

If you really want to continue this chart I would put them in the order of who has the best matchups. (+2 for large advantage, +1 for advantage, +0 for neutral, etc.) Then when they're all in order, put them into "tiers". Multiply that base number by 2 for top tier, 1.66 for high, 1.33 for mid, etc. This will take into account good matchups against the characters with better matchups without using the official tier list. Eh?

 

[Remzi]

Lol what. Any matchup on Falcon is worth next to zero because Falcon sucks.

Also, to weigh it easier, I would use all positive numbers. (0-4)

I wasn't actually trying to give a good example, just trying to show that something like this must be weighted.

Anyways, someone please close this before people are given the wrong idea >_>

 

[fox219]

Meta Knight is BROKEN!

 

[illinialex24]

I like this thread, Jigglypuff moved up to mid or higher.

 

[Tornadith]

I actually think that this SHOULD be all positive numbers because if not, when we got to the tiers...let's use this as an example

EXAMPLE
If Fox was in High Tier, but he had a score of -1, that would mean that when doing the x 1.66, it would now become -1.66. It DECREASED.

Here's what i'm thinking for positive numbers

Big Disadvantage - 0 points
Disadvantage - 1 point
Neutral - 2 points
Advantage - 3 points
Big Advantage - 4 points.

Sound good? Any flaw in that?