The New Match-Up Chart v2 - Convert to +/-? ;;>_>

[Sangoku]

I admire you <3. I would have loved to study math at the same time as med.

 

[clubbadubba]

It seemed like no one else is going to agree with Olikus, so I made a smashboards account just to back him up lol. I think kirby is a harder matchup for pikachu on DL than fox is. It doesn't seem like anyone disagrees with this, or at least no one thinks fox is harder than kirby (i could be wrong about that, feel free to speak up). It seems that the only question is whether it is a significant difference.

Personally, I think it goes falcon, kirby, mario, fox in terms of difficulty for pikachu on dl, but I agree all of those lie somewhere in the range of 55 to 65. With that being said, would it be too tough to use numbers that aren't multiples of 5? After all, with 11 matchups for each character, that does not leave much room for discerning between matchups against different characters.

 

[ballin4life]

I can definitely see both Pika Fox 65-35 and Pika Kirby 55-45 on Dreamland.

Multiples of 5 are better.

Also I think Kirby is better against Pika than Falcon on Dreamland. In general I think Falcon is overrated on Dreamland.

 

[Sangoku]

^^ seconded.

 

[myrosgyros]

agreed on both kirby being better and falcon being overrated

 

[Olikus]

It seemed like no one else is going to agree with Olikus, so I made a smashboards account just to back him up lol. I think kirby is a harder matchup for pikachu on DL than fox is. It doesn't seem like anyone disagrees with this, or at least no one thinks fox is harder than kirby (i could be wrong about that, feel free to speak up). It seems that the only question is whether it is a significant difference.

Personally, I think it goes falcon, kirby, mario, fox in terms of difficulty for pikachu on dl, but I agree all of those lie somewhere in the range of 55 to 65. With that being said, would it be too tough to use numbers that aren't multiples of 5? After all, with 11 matchups for each character, that does not leave much room for discerning between matchups against different characters.

I can definitely see both Pika Fox 65-35 and Pika Kirby 55-45 on Dreamland.

Multiples of 5 are better.

Also I think Kirby is better against Pika than Falcon on Dreamland. In general I think Falcon is overrated on Dreamland.

agreed on both kirby being better and falcon being overrated

Good job guys! But Im still unsecure about the numbers. But kirby should be harder than fox for pika on DL.

 

[ballin4life]

65-35 isn't that unrealistic for Pika Fox. That's just Pika winning twice as many matches as Fox.

 

[Olikus]

65-35 isn't that unrealistic for Pika Fox. That's just Pika winning twice as many matches as Fox.

That seems like the most accurat number then.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

I feel Kirby has a hard time vs pika on Dreamland. Pikachu getting a throw off into edgeguard is really easy to do, or just poking in with uair.

 

[DJRome]

icy, i had always thought about this method, but im not sure it's even accurate

so, take a matchup chart. then based on how good their matchups are, give each a weight. at this point, matchups are worth equal. so being good vs samus is equal in weigh to being good vs fox.

after weighting, use the same matchup chart as before to give a weighted rating on matchup total. then, based on that, reweight. continue until weightings before and after are the same.

what do you think?

 

[Olikus]

I feel Kirby has a hard time vs pika on Dreamland. Pikachu getting a throw off into edgeguard is really easy to do, or just poking in with uair.

Dont get me wrong, pika has the advantage over kirby. 60-40 could be right. I just thinks he has more trouble with him than fox on DL.

 

[t3h Icy]

55 Falcon
60 Kirby
65 Fox
60 Mario
65 Yoshi
65 DK
65 Jigglypuff
70 Ness
75 Link
70 Luigi
70 Samus

Does that seem about right?

icy, i had always thought about this method, but im not sure it's even accurate

so, take a matchup chart. then based on how good their matchups are, give each a weight. at this point, matchups are worth equal. so being good vs samus is equal in weigh to being good vs fox.

after weighting, use the same matchup chart as before to give a weighted rating on matchup total. then, based on that, reweight. continue until weightings before and after are the same.

what do you think?

Umm, if I'm understanding you right, isn't that what I am doing?

 

[Olikus]

55 Falcon
60 Kirby
65 Fox
60 Mario
65 Yoshi
65 DK
65 Jigglypuff
70 Ness
75 Link
70 Luigi
70 Samus

Does that seem about right?

I like what i see. Still would like more opinions though. Havent played much pika vs yoshi on DL for instance. But it looks right.

 

[The Star King]

Played seriouslies with Battlecow, my Puff vs. his Luigi.

We struck to Congo. I 3 stocked him. He counterpicked Hyrule. I 3 stocked him with him camping in the tent. He picked Hyrule again. I nearly JV 5 stocked him (4 stock and 9%).

I know player skill is a factor, but it's still not that bad, seriously.

 

[DJRome]

okay, maybe im not understanding your "ratios" then. im not sure why they're 1 or have pikachu at <1. would you mind further explaining the process? i think im missing something

 

[Olikus]

Played seriouslies with Battlecow, my Puff vs. his Luigi.

We struck to Congo. I 3 stocked him. He counterpicked Hyrule. I 3 stocked him with him camping in the tent. He picked Hyrule again. I nearly JV 5 stocked him (4 stock and 9%).

I know player skill is a factor, but it's still not that bad, seriously.

The whole point with the tier list is have poeple at the same level. So the caracthers shall have the influence. With better level come better spacing, and with better spacing you can beat pika with samus any day. Adding human factors should be keeped to a minimum. Ofc you have to speak of personal experience to back up your statements, nothing wrong with that. But that you beat battlecow with puff vs luigi doesnt change the matchup.

 

[ballin4life]

55 Falcon ->60
60 Kirby
65 Fox
60 Mario
65 Yoshi
65 DK
65 Jigglypuff
70 Ness ->75
75 Link
70 Luigi
70 Samus

Does that seem about right?

My opinion off the top of my head.

 

[t3h Icy]

okay, maybe im not understanding your "ratios" then. im not sure why they're 1 or have pikachu at <1. would you mind further explaining the process? i think im missing something

At this point, the numbers are unfathomably large, but what's important is on the far right, you'll notice a lot of the ratios start becoming 1 (ie, the characters are equal). Technically, these are never exactly 1, but become very close (and become 1 with the number of decimals I rounded by). What this shows is where tiers should be split up on; you'll see that this suggests, Pikachu; Fox, Kirby, Falcon, Mario, Yoshi; DK, Jigglypuff; Ness, Link, Luigi, Samus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

 

[The Star King]

The whole point with the tier list is have poeple at the same level. So the caracthers shall have the influence. With better level come better spacing, and with better spacing you can beat pika with samus any day. Adding human factors should be keeped to a minimum. Ofc you have to speak of personal experience to back up your statements, nothing wrong with that. But that you beat battlecow with puff vs luigi doesnt change the matchup.

I'm aware of this.

My opinion isn't based off Battlecow alone. I've never really had ANYBODY wreck me in this match-up.

I'm not saying my set with Battlecow is undeniable proof Luigi doesn't wreck Puff, I was just presenting it for you guys to think about.

I highly doubt I would have done as well in Pikachu vs Link, or Fox vs Samus or something.

 

[Peek~]

I agree with 70-30 Vs Ness

 

[Battlecow]

I'm aware of this.

My opinion isn't based off Battlecow alone. I've never really had ANYBODY wreck me in this match-up.

I'm not saying my set with Battlecow is undeniable proof Luigi doesn't wreck Puff, I was just presenting it for you guys to think about.

I highly doubt I would have done as well in Pikachu vs Link, or Fox vs Samus or something.

Puff>>Luigi. How else could Star King beat me?

Thanks for going into all the sordid details, btw.

 

[x After Dawn x]

****storm incoming

 

[ciaza]

65-35 isn't that unrealistic for Pika Fox. That's just Pika winning twice as many matches as Fox.

From my understanding, that's not how MU numbers work though. I mean if Pika-Ness is really 70-30, would you really expect a Ness to roughly win 1/3 games against a Pikachu?

As for the MU's in general, my opinions are the same as ballin's but maybe a 75 against Samus as well.

 

[Olikus]

If both samus and ness gets 75, then Link should get 80. Pikachu vs link on DL has to be the worst matchup in the game. Except maybe fox-samus hyrule. So its actually okay they two MU gets 80. Link shouldnt beat pika on DL.

 

[ballin4life]

From my understanding, that's not how MU numbers work though.

WHAT? Really? How do they work then?

I mean if Pika-Ness is really 70-30, would you really expect a Ness to roughly win 1/3 games against a Pikachu?

For players of even skill I don't think that's too out of line. Obviously the Ness has to be good enough to do combos and stuff.

 

[DJRome]

icy, don't be glib. what are they ratios of?

 

[ciaza]

Well, if I may quote aa here:

Before people would use 6:4, etc to describe what you originally thought - out of 10 matches, this character would win 6, etc, until people realised that this essentially puts a ****load of the matchup down to player skill, which isn't what you need when you're theorycrafting.

The 60:40 matchup is used to convey a rough 'character advantage', ie how competent the character is in all aspects of a matchup, which is more relevant in strong zoning games (but is still very relevant in smash). The criticism of this system is just that it's still implying that the losing character will definitely win a significant number of matches if played over time, significant enough to reduce the advantage to mere numbers. This isn't the case: a Link will not win 25 of 100 matches against a Fox on Hyrule, a Pika will almost certainly beat Samus every time even though the matchup is 70:30 or something. ...

 

[asianaussie]

tl;dr

if you are going to use the 60:40/etc system, please use it in a fashion that stresses likelihood of victory rather than 60 and 40 being the respective number of matches each character will win in a matchup

 

[ballin4life]

tl;dr

if you are going to use the 60:40/etc system, please use it in a fashion that stresses likelihood of victory rather than 60 and 40 being the respective number of matches each character will win in a matchup

Uh ... likelihood of victory = number of matches you win over a large sample. That's the definition of likelihood.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

 

[asianaussie]

nvm i sort of stopped caring

do whatever you want, numbers are needed for a mathcraft list like this one anyway

In other fighters and even a couple RTS games, describing a matchup as 60:40 means almost even, yet 60:40 in smash 64 is a rather significant advantage. The problem is we're using a traditional description for a unique outlier of a game. 64 players know that there are no absolutely horrendous matchups in this game, and hence cut back the tendency to use 90:10 and stuff like that.

As long as you mention something to ensure nothing is overinterpreted, it's ok.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, winning 60% and losing 40% is pretty close to even.

I really don't see any other reason to use numbers.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

The system should be used to show how many stocks the person should have left.

So say pika vs ness on DL. This matchup is 70-30 right? So putting this into stocks it should be around 2-3 stocks left for pika.

 

[asianaussie]

that's basically reducing the system to a 1-5 scale as opposed to a 50-100 scale for advantage

or do you mean we should be able to tell how many stocks are left from a finished matchup chart?

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

that's basically reducing the system to a 1-5 scale as opposed to a 50-100 scale for advantage

or do you mean we should be able to tell how many stocks are left from a finished matchup chart?

Is there something wrong with the 1-5 scaling? I really don't think certain matchups are going to resemble the current 60% win, 40% lose thing etc(That's for 60/40 matchups durp hurr). Having certain amount of stocks left makes a lot more sense to me. Some players are inconsistent and **** everything up though.

Maybe I'm reaaaally biased about this cause I don't face myself.

 

[The Star King]

See, that's why I hate ratios. There doesn't seem to be a common consensus on what they mean; it seems mostly based off people's gut feeling. A lot of people say that it's a win ratio, but I don't like that because it implies high variance in this game.

I already posted about this in the New Tier List thread a while back, but a lot of people didn't seem to get what I was saying. It's hard for to express this in words, but I don't think there's that much variance in Smash 64. When I play somebody I feel is equal to me in say, Pikachu vs Kirby, I don't win 60% and lose 40% of the time, I barely win almost every time, by like one stock. What I'm trying to say is that I think results in Smash 64 are more consistent (depending on the match-up) than people who say it's a win ratio seem to think, unless it's something dumb like Falcon dittos, it's dead even, or one of the players is highly unstable and inconsistent, making much more mistakes in one match than the other. Smash 64 results probably become less consistent the lower in skill you go, due to less stable/consistent players, but I was under the impression that this chart is for high-level play.

The ratios being stock ratios makes more sense to me, but you might as well use >, >>, etc at that point.

 

[ciaza]

Of course win ratios are dumb to use for the match-up chart, but I don't think the '>, >>' system adds enough depth. We should be using something like '>>>>, >>>, >>, >', but something cleaner like maybe: "large advantage, small advantage, fairly large advantage, etc. Duh.

 

[ballin4life]

See, that's why I hate ratios. There doesn't seem to be a common consensus on what they mean; it seems mostly based off people's gut feeling. A lot of people say that it's a win ratio, but I don't like that because it implies high variance in this game.

I already posted about this in the New Tier List thread a while back, but a lot of people didn't seem to get what I was saying. It's hard for to express this in words, but I don't think there's that much variance in Smash 64. When I play somebody I feel is equal to me in say, Pikachu vs Kirby, I don't win 60% and lose 40% of the time, I barely win almost every time, by like one stock. What I'm trying to say is that I think results in Smash 64 are more consistent (depending on the match-up) than people who say it's a win ratio seem to think, unless it's something dumb like Falcon dittos, it's dead even, or one of the players is highly unstable and inconsistent, making much more mistakes in one match than the other. Smash 64 results probably become less consistent the lower in skill you go, due to less stable/consistent players, but I was under the impression that this chart is for high-level play.

The ratios being stock ratios makes more sense to me, but you might as well use >, >>, etc at that point.

1) I feel like the exact opposite is true. I feel like variance is usually pretty high due to the abundance of combo/gimp opportunities

2) You're really saying you win 90+% of the time by exactly 1 stock? That seems crazy to me.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Before I begin, I find that ratios themselves are only really useful when both players are equally skilled top players and know/play the matchup equally. In many ways, it is similar to the discussion on how valid tier lists are.

Of course win ratios are dumb to use for the match-up chart, but I don't think the '>, >>' system adds enough depth. We should be using something like '>>>>, >>>, >>, >', but something cleaner like maybe: "large advantage, small advantage, fairly large advantage, etc. Duh.

a word such as light advantage refers to what a ratio defines as well. "Light advantage" specifically I find refers to a matchup that is is 55-45.

I would suggest using +, -, >, <, and =, where:

<< 40-60+ Heavily Countered
< 40-60 Countered
=- 45-55 Softly Countered
= 50-50 Even
=+ 55-45 Light Advantage
> 60-40 Advantage
>> 60-40+ Heavy advantage

Or some other wording...someone else help with this...lol.

 

[Olikus]

Numbers looks way more clearly than +, -, <, >>, ^, ¨, etc.

I dont get what people having problems with. 50-50 is a even matchup. 55-45 is close but some advantage. 60-40 greater advantage. 65-35 big advantage, 70-30 ****, 75-25 whos your daddy?

Its not like the match up is 60-40 then one wins 60 times and the other wins 40 times out of 100 matches. Its show how much advantage a player has over another. And it gets easy too understand and look at than the other suggestions.

To messure in exact stocks is wrong, cus you will never win with the exact same stock in a matchup every time. Numbers are allready decided, stick with it and focus on the matchups.

 

[Fish641]

I thought that 75-25 means that one player does 3 units for every 1 unit the opponent does. I say units because strictly damage percent doesn't translate for every character, so you have to use abstract concepts. In practice, it would look like one character winning a 6-stock match with 4 stocks left. Am I off-base?