Match-Up Chart (Outdated); please refer to the new chart.

[Dark Sonic]

Marth could also just nair after the first d-tilt, which covers wavedash forward OoS, jump OoS, spotdodging, and just sitting in shield.

btw (and this has nothing to do with the matchup) has anyone noticed that it's significantly easier to break some characters' shields? It's not like their shields take more damage, it's just that I've noticed some characters are significantly more dependent on shielding than others (Captain Falcon, Ganondorf, Link, Sheik, Ice Climbers, ect). Some because they have good OoS options, others because it's really their only defense to start with, others still because they can't run away effectively to let it recharge, ect. It's just a cool little thing that I like to exploit

 

[Kyu Puff]

Marth > ICs in my opinion, but it's a really close call.

The only thing ICs can do against a spaced d-tilt is b-air out of shield (if the Marth stays in place and doesn't jab or side+b). Spaced f-air is unpunishable. The trick is to not get hit by spaced moves, because you can shieldgrab either move if you're close enough. I've found that stage size is the determining factor in this match-up; ICs really need to be able to abuse their movement in order to penetrate Marth's f-air/d-tilt/side+b wall.

 

[BBQ°]

(What people have suggested thus far)

Marth >> ICs
Sheik >> Marth
Marth >> Peach
Marth >>> Roy
Marth >>/> Samus

I PM'd a few Marth players, but none of them responded. Must be a Marth thing. =P

Fly, Ninten and Kyu; thoughts on ICs?

Marth > Peach

just watch Armada vs M2k. Peach can handle the matchup just fine.

 

[Nintendude]

I've always leaned towards Marth > ICs. The matchup looks awful because of the wall Marth can throw out in front of him, but it's simply about being patient and waiting for him to misspace something or get caught off guard by a roll. Rolling behind Marth's stuff seriously works wonders against even the top Marths as long as you don't do it a lot. It doesn't take many openings to kill Marth and if you get control of the stage you can finish him off before he starts pushing you around again, which again isn't much if an issue if you are simply patient about it.

I'm pretty sure when Chu was in his prime he rarely lost to Marths other than Ken, and even against Ken he could keep it close. Keep in mind that Azen would go Falcon vs. Chu rather than Marth and also Chu was arguably the biggest threat to m2k as he was rising to the ridiculous levels he got to. Again, the matchup does look really bad in theory but somehow it really isn't that bad.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I would say Marth > ICs. Blizzard and ice blocks are underrated tools for coping with Marth's general range advantage. If ICs do just try to force their way in via shielding/fsmash/aerials/etc. a lot, then they'll probably get ***** by dtilt and fair walls, but they don't have to approach that way and don't actually have to approach that much in general. I think Marth's dtilt and grab are the biggest problems for ICs, and those tools plus Marth's ability to keep Popo above him and his decent resistance to a lot of the ICs grab tricks put the match-up in his favor a bit.

 

[KAOSTAR]

*can't wait for zelda m2 discussion to start up again*

I'm waiting on the edge of my seat!

haha You TOO? ^_^

 

[TresChikon]

i suggest ≥

good idea

but i ken't find it on mah keybored

>>><<<>><<><=

 

[Shiri]

Submitted for your consideration.

Exhibit A.

That is all, gentlemen. Dismissed.

 

[Nintendude]

I played embarrassingly badly in that set =x

 

[unknown522]

Marth > Peach

just watch Armada vs M2k. Peach can handle the matchup just fine.

I dunno about it. It's clear that M2K has the upper-hand all the time, until he starts being a ******. at the end...

 

[KirbyKaze]

Though I don't disagree, and actually agree that Marth >> Peach, Mew2King's failure on last stock at *pound* doesn't adequately explain him vs Armada at Genesis.

edit: I guess you could say he got Stitched, which would be fair, but it seems like such a lame answer.

 

[BBQ°]

Heh, you guys are reacting like I think Peach has the advantage. All I said is that Peach can handle the matchup, and gave Armada vs M2k as an example. Let's say Armada lost those matches, well it would still be an extremely close match, which is why I say Peach can handle the matchup (but not necessarily win the matchup). Peach can deal with some of Marth's stuff, it's just hard.
Marth > Peach.

 

[unknown522]

Heh, you guys are reacting like I think Peach has the advantage.

Inever said that.

All I said is that Peach can handle the matchup, and gave Armada vs M2k as an example. Let's say Armada lost those matches, well it would still be an extremely close match, which is why I say Peach can handle the matchup (but not necessarily win the matchup). Peach can deal with some of Marth's stuff, it's just hard.
Marth > Peach.

I strongly disagree, but I don't care.

 

[KAOSTAR]

While marth clearly has the advantage in the matchup

I wouldnt say peach was helpless.

 

[Niko45]

M2K is known to be very good against Peach. It should be clear from his history with Armada that it's not THAT lopsided a matchup.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think marth > peach just because of peach's dash attack and turnips.

 

[TheManaLord]

Good old ">" system fails us once again!

 

[otg]

Good old ">" system fails us once again!

I think the ">" system is fine, we just need to get rid of the ">>>" column because it is NOT necessary.

 

[Hazygoose]

I think the ">" system is fine, we just need to get rid of the ">>>" column because it is NOT necessary.

i think you mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[TheManaLord]

I think the ">" system is fine, we just need to get rid of the ">>>" column because it is NOT necessary.

You really think the matchups can be limited to =, <, <<, >, and >>? That's kind of opposite of what I was implying.

 

[otg]

You really think the matchups can be limited to =, <, <<, >, and >>? That's kind of opposite of what I was implying.

Yes I do. I've already explained my reasoning for this in earlier posts (there is potentially one on the first page or 2nd page as well) so I don't plan on repeating myself again. #'s are total bs and are based on nothing, and at the end of the day anything beyond like 70:30 at top level play is essentially an impossible matchup anyway, so bother getting into trivial details?

 

[1048576]

More accuracy > Less accuracy.

IMO, there should be more than 4 "groupings" of different matchups. I kind of liked the six offered by going from 0 - 10.

I guess we should get the simple framework down first though. Then maybe subdivide further.

 

[TheManaLord]

0:100 or 1-10 are good. But the current one, or ones even more restrictive, simply don't represent matcuhps properly and groups matchups with different weighting under the same category.

 

[otg]

lol you guys are just nitpicking now. Tell me the difference between a 60:40 matchup and a 65:35 matchup.

 

[TheManaLord]

One is slightly easier than the other. Just slightly though, but it's quantifiable at least.

 

[Nintendude]

One is slightly easier than the other. Just slightly though, but it's quantifiable at least.

You are basically saying that you can get a number out of a qualitative analysis. That's a horrible way to analyze something since things like recovery and combo ability cannot be represented with numbers. You can't slap a concrete number on something with no calculations. Since we are doing qualitative analysis, it is much more reasonable (and justifiable) to say that a matchup is a "slight advantage" rather than say it is 60:40.

 

[otg]

You are basically saying that you can get a number out of a qualitative analysis. That's a horrible way to analyze something since things like recovery and combo ability cannot be represented with numbers. You can't slap a concrete number on something with no calculations. Since we are doing qualitative analysis, it is much more reasonable (and justifiable) to say that a matchup is a "slight advantage" rather than say it is 60:40.

Thank you.

 

[TheManaLord]

So using smaller quantities is acceptable? -3 to +3 is much more fail than using the traditional system. It really doesn't make sense what you're trying to advocate.

 

[Nintendude]

So using smaller quantities is acceptable? -3 to +3 is much more fail than using the traditional system. It really doesn't make sense what you're trying to advocate.

-3 and +3 doesn't imply anything numeric.

-3 means "big disadvantage"
0 means "even"
+2 means "advantage"
etc.

It's simply a shorthand notation. It's no different than writing it using greek characters or simply using the >, >>, etc. characters.

 

[TheManaLord]

All the numbers or symbols represent the same things. Using a larger scale simply implies more accurate results. Do we want people to have broad nonspecific ideas of what the matchups are, or do we want to give people accurate statistics? What do other communities do? It's just really pointless to vaguely categorize matchups.

 

[Nintendude]

All the numbers or symbols represent the same things. Using a larger scale simply implies more accurate results. Do we want people to have broad nonspecific ideas of what the matchups are, or do we want to give people accurate statistics? What do other communities do? It's just really pointless to vaguely categorize matchups.

No.

A "larger scale" is more accurate if you have data that can serve as a basis for that accuracy. Have you learned about significant figures? Sure, 4.329387324 looks more accurate than 4.33, but it is not unless you actually have numbers with that sort of precision. Our method of analysis has horrible precision, therefore you need to have broad categories.

If you want accurate statistics, read here and go get your numbers:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=250970

 

[TheManaLord]

You're way to into it. Interpret the **** like other fighter games and not by all this witchcraft. Something graspable and applicable needs to be portrayed.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i think otg's idea is the best.

who needs to argue whether a matchup is 55-45 or 60-40 when the number have no meaning. All we really need to know is, > is it favors one person, >> counter matchup, = even.

 

[TheManaLord]

Holy ****. The forms we choose to represents the matchups MEAN THE SAME THING. Some are just more perceivably accurate and more easily interpreted and distinguished from other matchups.

Broad categorizations lead to the standard scenario of "these two characters are rated the same against this character, but one has an easier time than the other". If these distinguishes can be easily made it is just as easy to separate them visually on the chart.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Qualitative is a pretty good way to go. Numbers are better, but idk where we would get them from.

>>> do exist in high tier vs low tier matchups.

>> and above being "unwinnable" is inaccurate in the sense that these characters are controlled by ppl. It should be closer to a probability of success or for these purposes, a range represented by a qualitative symbol.

I like to look at it like: x character needs to make a certain amount of mistakes for y character to take the match.

 

[Nintendude]

You're way to into it. Interpret the **** like other fighter games and not by all this witchcraft. Something graspable and applicable needs to be portrayed.

Graspable and applicable? That's EXACTLY what the qualitative analysis results in! Anyone, even someone who does not play smash, can grasp the concept of character X has an advantage over character Y. 60:40, on the other hand, will have no meaning to the layman.

I'm not sure what kind of applicability you are looking for, but just the fact that this chart can show everyone who has advantages over who, relative to one another, seems like a great application to me. Don't forget that our results are also being applied to generate a new rankings list.

 

[otg]

Graspable and applicable? That's EXACTLY what the qualitative analysis results in! Anyone, even someone who does not play smash, can grasp the concept of character X has an advantage over character Y. 60:40, on the other hand, will have no meaning to the layman.

This.

What I find so funny is I proposed my idea like 4 months ago (it's on the 2nd page if you're looking at 15ppp), and it was pretty much ignored.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Its a bit harder to try to represent who has more of an advantage between something like x>>y, z>>y.

Since we cant accurately put anything into numbers its hard to quantify by how much 1 characters adv/dis is over another.

But its still good for a direct comparison between individual characters. And I could look at it and say, oh, x is a pretty good character. B is a pretty ****ty one.

@otg-sometimes you gotta fail b4 you reailize **** aint working. Humans and **** u kno.

 

[john!]

Why is everyone trying to assign English-language meanings to the symbols? They are only relative to each other. If you want to know what >> means, look at all the >>'s on the chart and imagine those matchups.

I'm in favor of adding ≤ and ≥ to indicate matchups where one character has a slight advantage, but the current system is also fine.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Could you be more specific.

currently <> represents what you call a slight advantage/disadvantage.

and by specifying "one", are you implying somehow that both characters can have a slight advantage.

*Mad trolling*