Hazygoose
Smash Lord
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.
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.