laaaaawl y'all can't read ****! I just said no **** about that sveet.
And john I told you mathematical errors galore, I've been stoned and drunk all day I'm just at work ready to pass out!
and holy **** at adding more symbols, you realize the chart USED RIGHT NOW is representing things mathematically with NUMBERS lmfao adding another symbol is ridiculous it'll never be displayed in that fashion anyways
the precision from 100:0 is necessary and ideal
If you want to consider Fox and Falco to be > Falco, that's fine. You just have to ensure that every matchup more lopsided is considered > as well. Perhaps the matchups that are on the more extreme end of > should be >>. Either way, that's not a poor reflection of the method, just its implementation.
Basically, we're performing a sort on every possible matchup in the game. Only instead of putting all the pieces back together in order, we're leaving the seven broad categories unsorted. This ensures that we get done within Smash's lifetime.
Personally, I think Fox Falco is a good benchmark for the cutoff point of =. Everything more advantageous for one character than Fox Falco should be considered > or higher.
It might be worthwhile to actually define these "cutoff matchups", so we have something to work with when declaring a matchup as > vs. >> or >> vs >>>