Match-Up Chart (Outdated); please refer to the new chart.

[Hazygoose]

themanalord's entire point is that, while explaining the difference between slight and heavy advantages might seem arbitrary, that it is pretty much the entire point of this thread. to even make the differentiation between "counter" and "advantage" is no less arbitrary than "slight advantage" and "high advantage," etc. (obviously not always, or else i would be arguing that 99/1 and 98/2 should be very much differentiated...next paragraph shall explain) when you come to the conclusion that all matchups should be discussed qualitatively, there is no need for an attempt at a mathematical chart. or, alternatively, every matchup requires additional explanation that would be easier explained with a more specified system.

i definitely understand what people are saying about the silliness of 65/35 and 70/30 distinction. however, there seem to be too many instances to me that can't be summed up simply by "advantage." for instance why fox is seen as a better character than sheik in the current metagame, which partially boils down to something like: sheik might win "90/10" against a bunch of low-tiers while fox wins "80/20," but it's fox's "70/30" MUs against some mid/high-tiers as opposed to sheik's "60/40" MUs that are way more impactful in the current metagame.

now, don't go nitpicking my example, or even arguing it, you should understand regardless the point of what i'm trying to say. you get to a point where you have A>B and C>B, and you have to constantly explain qualitatively why C has a much bigger advantage than A. it becomes way less efficient, and is seemingly in contrast to the entire idea of a matchup chart.

three "tiers," if you would, of advantages, aka the current system seems to be working fine in my opinion, but you can't make everyone happy at once.
disregard my bad word choice and sentence structures, please, i've been awake for almost 30 hours.

 

[john!]

I'm just saying that I think it would be more accurate to have nine matchup ratios instead of seven, while still being reasonably easy to debate... especially because the high-tiered matchups are very nuanced and need more description than "slight advantage" and "advantage". But since we've already come this far with seven, we might as well keep it. But only having five is not nearly enough. We already have giant swaths of color on the chart covering matchups that aren't quite the same... no need to make it worse.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I just dont see why the matchup chart needs to be some crazy elaborate interconnected calculatory masterpiece.

Why cant it be looked at as a general x character does better against y. Just make a note that each quality is equivalent to a numerical range(we shouldnt really miss the range even without being able to accurately quantify matchups).

I dont need to know x>y but x>z is slightly different. Because in the end, x still has a slight advantage over both y and z.

As far as 9 vs 7, yes its technically more accurate. But then we are getting back to having to quanitify **** like 60-40 and 65-35. You have to draw the line somewhere. The bigger the ranges, the less accurate our chart is in terms of complete consistent data, but the more efficient it is in terms of getting simple messages across to the reader.

If they want to know which characters are considered "better" they can look at the tier list. Also if you put the chart in order of the tier list, it should be easy for somebody to measure that some matchups mean a bit more because its vs a better character. They can also just look at that characters matchups and realize oh this character is pretty bad, but it just happens to do kinda well against this character(maybe like pikachu vs falcon).

If you want to be crazy mad scientist accurate, start applying numerical values to things like combos, damage, speed, hitbox size, hurtbox size, recover, etc. And thats pretty much for each move of each character. Ill see you in 2012 when the world is ending because you finished the chart.

If things can still be implied from the chart, lets leave it at that. We dont have to spoon feed the reader all of the information, thats brawl ****.

 

[TheManaLord]

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.

Oh you didn't know the smash community is a bunch of bandwagoners? It seems like some people are just a little late to getting into it.

Our community doesn't have to be so different. 60:40 is a percent, something that all people understand. Much more rigidly than >, because fractions and percents try to represent the same quantities in different forms. People apply percents much more in daily routine through advertising and work.

Or 0:10 can represent the number of matches, because it takes a certain amount of game comprehension to look up the match-up chart to begin with, they'd at least have the comprehension to understand what it's representing. Out of ten matches how many times would each person win on average...

We're not making this stuff for babies. It's for people in the community who actually use the information.

 

[KAOSTAR]

how do you calculate that you will win 60% of the time. what if its 59-41. Pretty much making definite percents is setting us up to fail, unless you want to base it off tournament outcomes. but even thats hard cuz skill would need to be weighted.

vs you know the matchups is > in your favor meaning somewhere around 56-64% if you use the approximations ppl have been giving.

That says the same thing pretty much, but is easier to come up with. The more one sided the more accurate you will be in saying >>>. but is it 80-20, 90-10, 75-25.

If we can calculate percents then we are better off using a small range, basically a margin of error built in since we have nothing definite. Melee is just more complex in alot of ways than other fighters.

 

[TheManaLord]

Testing, history, analysis. We can interpret data well enough and through comparison with other match-ups it's really not hard. Displaying it 100:0 with 5 as the interval it's basically twenty ">" signs. It's more precise. If we can get it that precise, and display it in a better manner, why not?

 

[Nintendude]

Testing, history, analysis. We can interpret data well enough and through comparison with other match-ups it's really not hard. Displaying it 100:0 with 5 as the interval it's basically twenty ">" signs. It's more precise. If we can get it that precise, and display it in a better manner, why not?

Since when do we have enough data to assign numbers to all the matchups that we never ever see? Only like a quarter of the matchups on the chart are commonplace.

Also, how do you justify the difference between a 85:15 and 90:10? What's really nice about > signs is you lump all the horrible matchups into one category. For all practical purposes, we don't care if Fox wrecks Ness worse than he wrecks Bowser, and good luck to anyone who tries to assign justifiable numbers to those matchups.

 

[TheManaLord]

But for more important matchups at a higher level the small difference of two close characters IS important. If anything the low tiers numbers' would just be slightly inaccurate, but again who gives a **** about those characters? The same principle is applied. The one you're proposing is more accurate for the character matchups that we care less about, the one I'm proposing is more important for the characters that actually matter and are used.

 

[KAOSTAR]

It doesnt matter that much.

if fox has an advantage over sheik, large, or slight. thats good enough.

Thats means alot.

I really dont need to know that its 63-37. how doest that change anything in my thinking, doing, character selecting if we just say >>.

If I want a more in depth description I will play the game, or ask somebody. Exp cannot always be transcribed. Some things just come with time and practice.

 

[t3h Icy]

The whole idea of this style is to sacrifice precision for accuracy. As mentioned, the difference between 90:10 and 85:15 is negligible, so why not just have it >>>? The difference in Sheik beating Bowser and Pichu isn't really important to the Sheik player, the Pichu player or the Bowser player. They all know though that Sheik destroys both of them. Putting in time and effort into getting precise numbers doesn't seem worth it.

The numbers present in the chart right now are only for clarification. A few colourblinded Smashers couldn't read the chart nicely, so I added numbers 1 to 7 for them, and then when others came in wondering why Marth was a 6 with Yoshi, I changed it to -3 to +3.

Numbers are better, but nobody here has the mathematical capabilities to reach those numbers, and theorycrafting numbered match-ups just makes a mess. Using the >< system isn't as precise, but it's more accurate and more consistent. Not to mention that about 75% of the chart would be filled with numbered match-ups of low-tier match-ups that people see once in a blue moon. It would be incredibly inconsistent. Of course "who cares about low-tiers?", well likely the players of those characters, people that play against them, and also for those that are just generally interested. Ignoring low-tiers would make the chart incomplete and look like this:

So Jigglypuff goes up and a few switches move around. But if you look at the rest of the chart, Jigglypuff doesn't destroy lower tiers like Sheik and Fox do. It's weighted, but Jigglypuff doesn't have many completely one-sided match-ups.

Of course, there isn't an even number of players per character, but this chart is for informational purposes anyway. SSB64 has a balance of all the characters, it has no backroom and had a Tier List sitting in the dust forever, so it was affected by the chart. For this, perhaps the chart will influence tiers somewhat, but it'd be inaccurate to base it entirely off the chart here.

So stop whining about it. The number system didn't work for the previous chart, and Melee has much more depth than traditional fighting games, where numbers would be an acceptable way of showing match-ups.

Also:

Sheik >> Marth
Marth >>> Roy
Marth >>/> Samus

 

[Lovage]

falco = puff

this prolly isn't true, but i want to believe it very much

good sht pp

edit: WTF sheik is not >> marth. it's >

 

[JPOBS]

But for more important matchups at a higher level the small difference of two close characters IS important. If anything the low tiers numbers' would just be slightly inaccurate, but again who gives a **** about those characters? The same principle is applied. The one you're proposing is more accurate for the character matchups that we care less about, the one I'm proposing is more important for the characters that actually matter and are used.

the proponents of the usage of ">" are missing this one very important point.

stop saying "tell me the diffeence between 85:15 and 90:10" no one cares.
But for us, the difference between 55:45 and 60:40 or 50:50 means the world.

edit:and yea, puff is even with falco, not cuz of PP. i've been saying that for ages. hell, falco might even be > puff.

 

[otg]

Icy, I like that viable character matchup chart alot. It's really the only one that matters anyway lol.

 

[TheManaLord]

FALCON IC'S EVEN?

it's def falcon > IC's

and i like that condensed version as well

 

[KirbyKaze]

Samus should be included if we're including Ganon IMHO.

 

[TheManaLord]

Doc should be included if we're including Samus IMHO.


edit: sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Kyu Puff]

FALCON IC'S EVEN?

it's def falcon > IC's

and i like that condensed version as well

more like ICs > falcon...

 

[KirbyKaze]

Doc should be included if we're including Samus IMHO.


edit: sorry, couldn't resist

I don't really care. No need to apologize.

Personally, I'm really on the fence about whether or not Doc is a real character. I keep thinking he is, but then he seems horrible. But then it seems we've only recently begun having decent Docs emerge so idk. It seems his character is (IMO) like Sheik in that people wrote him off as a completely basic character and never bothered taking his game further.

 

[TheManaLord]

more like ICs > falcon...

Wait are you saying M2 > Zelda? You've got it backwards, it's Zelda > M2.

 

[KAOSTAR]

So I have been troll summoned lol

Its def M2>zelda

but I dont particularly care for the condensed version. It may not matter to those who play high tier characters but for somebody wanting to play a mid/low/bottom you shouldnt be the one to say their matchups arent important. What if you run into axe in tourney. His pika has been doin quite some damage.

Its just dumb to exclude 1/3 of the characters because the matchup doesnt happen often. It still happens.

 

[john!]

Doc should be included if we're including Samus IMHO.

But if we include Doc, we might as well include Mario. They're basically the same character.

And Luigi's his brother, so let's include him too.

 

[Lovage]

samus and doc are both fine

pika and luigi are pretty good too so idk
mario sucks imo

 

[Nintendude]

Falcon = ICs
Sheik > Marth
Marth > Samus
Marth >> Roy

 

[otg]

If you're going to include Doc, you really have to include Mario. Frankly I wouldn't bother including Doc or Samus. And if people think that Doc and Samus' should be included because Ganon is there.... well take Ganon off. These characters all suck honestly.

 

[Divinokage]

If they suck so much then you can beat anyone who mains them right? MM? =P

 

[t3h Icy]

The chart is keeping all the characters.

 

[1048576]

Oh you didn't know the smash community is a bunch of bandwagoners? It seems like some people are just a little late to getting into it.

Our community doesn't have to be so different. 60:40 is a percent, something that all people understand. Much more rigidly than >, because fractions and percents try to represent the same quantities in different forms. People apply percents much more in daily routine through advertising and work.

Or 0:10 can represent the number of matches, because it takes a certain amount of game comprehension to look up the match-up chart to begin with, they'd at least have the comprehension to understand what it's representing. Out of ten matches how many times would each person win on average...

We're not making this stuff for babies. It's for people in the community who actually use the information.

Go off and rank all the matchups for yourself from most to least difficult. Hey look, 651 different numbers. That's really accurate.

Maybe you're overlooking that we had difficulty with 19. Seven is not trivially simple. We should start with a broad classification, and then if we have time later, we can split each group of advantages into two subgroups (so 13). Chances are we won't have time though, since after we finish, new metagame information will appear.

And that's a horrible way of looking at it, since if two players were actually equally skilled, a 51 would win against a 49 ten out of ten times.

 

[KAOSTAR]

See thas the problem with this kinda ****.

if too players were equal, does that mean the better character will take most of the matches, because the character is better in the matchup, ie winning 8-9/10 on a slight advantage because the chance of victory is higher.

or would it be something like 6-7/10? saying they would win 60% of the time

 

[t3h Icy]

Moving on: let's finish the last few Marth match-ups and then we can move onto the next character.

Sheik >> Marth
Marth >>> Roy
Marth >>/> Samus

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i'd agree with sheik >> marth. Sheik is so gay........

Marth >>> Roy is super obvious... marth can CC punish everything roy does, **** him in combos, edge guard him easily, move better, has less lag, ect. Roy can do bthrow to fsmash if marth DIs wrong.

 

[VGmasta]

I agree with Marth >> Doc.
Marth eats Doc. Marth's grab range alone literally outranges Doc's longest reaching attacks.
*nods head*

Anyways, it's nice to see that Ganondorf has moved up on the tier list.

 

[Lovage]

sheik is NOT >> marth

are you people crazy wtf

 

[xbombr]

Lovage has a point.

I honestly think that with Marth's range and combo potential that it's impossible for him to have a << match up. Needles, platform camping, ect. don't make Sheik an unstoppable force when it comes time to actually approach and get the kill.

I don't think this match up is really that hard for Sheik, but I don't think it's anywhere near **** enough for Marth to get a -2 for it.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I think its slightly in sheiks favor simply because her combos are auto and mostly out of grab.

She just has to do a bit less work to get them. and she has a projectile which tips the scale a bit.

Other than that, it would be equal.

 

[TheManaLord]

marth is +1 v ic's but not falcon? that doesn't make any sense. considering one of the most famous marth mains in the world countpicked falcon v the best IC's ever in a set and won easily. it's simply in falcons favor, no discussion or video of darkrain v wobbles can change it lmfao

and sheik being >> marth is whack as ****

some of these matchups are wrong as hell

 

[xbombr]

Saying Sheik is >> than Marth is saying that the match up is roughly as bad for Marth as it is for Falcon, which is obviously not true.

 

[Niko45]

Sheik vs Marth at a glance looks like a slaughter because it comes easier to sheik and she can start ****** the tar out of marth at a lower level of play. Once both players are actually very experienced in the matchup, tho, I think it becomes surprisingly close.

Her combo weight is like Roy's, IE extremely awesome for Marth. You just need to not poke her/juggle her til she's above combo % (which actually starts extremely early) and have lots of edgeguarding mixups and she's really not that bad at all.

People seem to kinda be reaching for lopsided matchups to give more depth to the overall chart (Marth/Sheik, Marth/Peach, Marth/Samus) when the reality is that lopsided matchups between high and top tiers are really rare.

Oh, and Doc v Marth is absolutely not Marth >> Doc.

 

[Lovage]

sheik isnt >> falcon either imo

but whatever i dont play those characters

 

[TheManaLord]

@ Niko: it's also because marth sheik is like 60:40 and with the flawed system they can't even decide between > or >>.

I agree with your sentiments. Thy want things crazier than they truly are. Lots of wrong matchups because of it.

@lovge: I think sheik has the advantage over falcon but not by two deviations, it's more like one and a half or two thirds. This chart can't represent that though =\

 

[1048576]

I'm thinking 60:40 is >, but it doesn't matter as long as it's internally consistent.

When you consider that there's only 3 different categories of bad matchup, Falcon can easily be seen as "in the same league" as Marth in the Sheik matchup. It's like being on the top vs. the bottom of low tier.