Missed these... Back to missed topics!
who decided that and why and what purpose does that kind of ratio serve?
like, the entire concept of what you just described is asinine and completely moronic.
It makes complete sense! Whoever said that we have to interpret Smash ratios just like SF ratios? I play 2D fighters; I know what their ratios mean. Like, every question you just asked me above, I could ask about
your interpretation of ratios in this game. I think you're just being stubborn and holding to a certain way of seeing things, just because it was used in an older fighting game. I'm pretty sure that the way I described it is how most people who use and/or prefer the ratio system see it. It's arbitrary of you to say, "You're just saying that now to defend your views," because if it makes sense and accurately describes how we view MU ratios, then why not? Smash is not a FG. Stop trying to read numbers for it as if it was.
Stop trying to relate the matchup systems to each other.
We've been saying this since it came out. Is it really that hard?
0 = Even
1 = Slight Advantage
2 = Solid/Strong Advantage
3 = One-Sided Matchup
4 = Unwinnable.
So when exactly does a "One-sided MU" go past the line of +3 and become +4? When does it fall below the barrier and become +2? Why do high level players of one char go against high level players of another char in a -4 MU and still come out on top? This 5-tiered MU value system is vague and ambiguous. Sure, you could argue that it "groups MUs by difficulty" but that doesn't change the fact that MUs are often seen as belonging to more than one group and groups are even treated as such. It's too hard to accurately place one MU into a certain difficulty group unless it's an even MU or a true 100:0 (which doesn't exist). As such, it's even harder to interpret them accurately and
consistently after they're written.
As far as rations go, I see it as how much a character has advantage over the course of a match. As in, a 60:40 means that a character will have advantage during 60% of the match course (by using its tools, covering its opponent's options, etc).
So, the thero character, with 40% of opportunities/options able to beat its opponent's have an uphill battle...
Then, there are options or exploits with more value than others, like chaingrabs, Marth's chaingrab>Spike, grab releases, or gimps.
My two cents.
^^^ This EXACTLY! Ratios don't dictate how much you should win. I don't think many have ever interpreted them as such, either. They state how much of an advantage you have during the actual match. SF ratios dictate how many times you should be winning.
of course, we have no real set of win rates to go by because no TO does match slips. We simply have often flawed tournament results threads that simply can't account for every set played in the tournament, nor stages used.
Yo, we should seriously start using those! It would make data collection sooooo much more accurate and efficient. We need some TOs to man (and woman) up and start doing this so we can accurately see what's going on in their tourneys.
Jigglypuff is the worst character in this game by far.
Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf are capable of so much more, at least.
Jiggs is terribad.
Link's bomb alone is better than Jigglypuff.
I'm not trolling dammit.
Ganondorf vs Jiggs might be debatable, but the fact that she's above Zelda and Link especially is kind of ridiculous.
I've agreed with these, and even argued these here, since last year. Jiggs should be last, not Ganon.
