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

[SheerMadness]

But if you're lasering correctly you can essentially force DK to literally have to camp the top dreamland platform all match or he won't be able to move.

 

[jimmyjoe]

I know we're on Kirby but I'm just looking through this thread for the first time tonight so I'm gonna jump back/ahead a little, but hey atleast I'm on topic!


I know how everybody feels about samus and all, but she seems to have a lot of 60-40 matchups and I mostly agree, except besides just puff, I think DK can be 50-50. Call me crazy but I think DKs size makes him susceptible to samus' dairs and bairs, and DK has no projectile to help with his approach on her when she is playing defensively. She can gimp him pretty easily too.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

DK can theoretically stop every approach in the game with his aerial upb, and Samus happens to approach using slow aerials so it's easy to counter.

 

[The Star King]

I agree with Yoshi vs Pika being 40:60 (**** ratios, +2) on Dreamland, and I also think Yoshi is one of maybe two characters that does better vs Pika on Dreamland than on Hyrule. You can't really gimp Yoshi at low %s if the Yoshi player knows what he's doing, which nullifies the huge gimping advantage Pika gains against most of the stage. The layout and size of the stage only gives him more killing opportunities with easier dash attack/nair/ftilt -> fair combos, and extremely low % kills with fair -> usmash.

 

[jimmyjoe]

Interesting, but If DK is countering samus' aerials with up-b, it isn't going to put him in a very advantageous situation that often even if he does land it no? Also, samus should force DK to approach with her bombs and shots.

 

[clubbadubba]

@jimmyjoe:

1) The point is that DK's upb makes it hard for samus to put DK in a disadvantageous situation.

2) We haven't got to DK or samus yet, so let's hold off on that discussion, we're working on kirby's matchups atm.

 

[jimmyjoe]

No I get boom's point, but my point, clubba, is that it still doesn't necessarily mean DK is in an advantageous position.

But you're right, now is not the time, we'll come back to it.

 

[Battlecow]

I maintain that Kirby ***** Link harder than he (she? it?) does ness. 65-35 v ness, 70-30 v link.

 

[jimmyjoe]

I maintain that Kirby ***** Link harder than he (she? it?) does ness. 65-35 v ness, 70-30 v link.

agreed. Link doesn't have the space to play defensively like he would on Hyrule, and I think Ness can try to aggressively combat Kirby's gheyness on DL, with the platforms and all. Link would have a tougher time being the aggressor.

 

[The Star King]

I maintain that Kirby ***** Link harder than he (she? it?) does ness. 65-35 v ness, 70-30 v link.

It might be about the same on Dreamland, but Link definitely does better against Kirby overall.

EDIT: As a preemptive strike against the argument that I feel coming up, seeing as how you foolishly said Kirby vs Link is one of the worst match-ups in the game, I'll pull up some old quotes from the previous match-up thread:

Kirby definitely punishes Link very hard, but can have a tough time approaching since he's not that fast and he doesn't have a good projectile. Kirby shines best when his opponents are forced to attempt to break through his high-priority defenses - Link does not, thanks to his projectiles.

Support is always nice:

Everything star king said is valid and I stand by it as a Link main.

kirby is a pretty good matchup for link actually lol

 

[MATTS!]

It's easier to kill LINK on Dreamland with Kirby than it is Ness, BUT it's easier to edgegaurd ness to death than it is LINK cause of projectiles. Ness has that ******** piece of crap that makes him go in one direction when hes off stage(up+b), and you can just gimp him to death. Ness has more of an advantage ON-GROUND-COMBAT vs Kirby than Link, OverALL the GREAT MATTS! would say:

Kirby > Ness (52 - 48)

Kirby > Link (55 - 45)



The GREAT MATTS!

 

[Sangoku]

wut no more character=character? ^^

 

[Battlecow]

52-48 on ness is pretty close to character=character

Ima back off the kirby-link point, not because I respect Star King's lame opinions, but because I don't care about kirby.

 

[jimmyjoe]

What Battlecow said. Are we almost done with Kirby?

 

[The Star King]

Ima back off the kirby-link point, not because I respect Star King's lame opinions, but because I don't care about kirby.

Awww, how cute.

Somehow saw it coming, anyways, even though I didn't know you don't care about Kirby. Maybe because it's for a different reason? PWNED <3

 

[t3h Icy]

Kirby 65 DK
Kirby 70 Ness
Kirby 65 Link
Kirby 65 Luigi
Fox 65 Puff
Fox 60 DK
Pika 60 Yoshi

Something like that?

 

[Olikus]

Kirby 65 DK
Kirby 70 Ness
Kirby 65 Link
Kirby 65 Luigi
Fox 65 Puff
Fox 60 DK
Pika 60 Yoshi

Something like that?

It seems allright, but I think the majority of the posters agreed that fox vs DK on DL isnt that bad. More 55-45. Some even said it was even/advantage DK.

I allso think kirby-link is 70-30 since hes moves can stop links projectiles fairly easy, which is the little link can contribute with vs him, but the majority seemd to think otherwise.

 

[The Star King]

Fox 60 Puff

Kind of annoyed that Icy mostly ignored the ratio discussion, probably because he apparently supports ratios himself. I'm calling for you to justify the use of ratios, Icy.

 

[t3h Icy]

I asked at the start, and everyone said they were fine with them. =/

 

[King Omega]

I allso think kirby-link is 70-30 since hes moves can stop links projectiles fairly easy, which is the little link can contribute with vs him, but the majority seemd to think otherwise.

I agree. Kirby nair (or, hell, probably all of them except dair) and boomerangs are completely useless. And Kirby doesn't have to worry about eating many bombs thanks to air maneuverability.

If you say Link's one advantage is projectiles so he doesn't have to approach utilt spam or the Wall of Bair or whatever, unless the Kirby is an idiot and shileds instead of moving, I don't think he'll be feeling much pressure from bombs and rangs.

 

[The Star King]

I asked at the start, and everyone said they were fine with them. =/

That's true. We discussed it more at around the end of page 4 (40 ppp), but I probably should have complained earlier.

 

[asianaussie]

I agree. Kirby nair (or, hell, probably all of them except dair) and boomerangs are completely useless. And Kirby doesn't have to worry about eating many bombs thanks to air maneuverability.

Kirby isn't fast in the air. He's got average air speed and he's floaty. Lots of jumps =/= maneuverability.

The idea behind projectiles isn't just to deal damage, it's to force a reaction and approach. If it deals damage in the process, great, but if you force them to shield/N-Air or something over and over, they are on the defensive, which is where Link wants Kirby to be.

This is sort of a dumb point on Dreamland, but Link-Kirby is not as bad as Ness-Kirby. They both suck.

EDIT: ok since we're using +X, Kirby Link is approximately +3 Kirby (that's like 65:35 I think), Kirby Ness is probably +4.

 

[t3h Icy]

This is always when discussion nosedives and everything fails into explosions and death but.....

Do you guys want a +/- system? Really though, with the numbers I've offered, it's basically the same thing except from -5 to +5, but if they affect you folk that much, I suppose we could convert over, especially before we get too far.

Yes, yes?

 

[Tech_EDGE]

edit...........

 

[Surri-Sama]

I have far more trouble vs Link then Ness while using kirby.

The ability to "negate" projectiles is an over rated argument.

 

[Battlecow]

This is always when discussion nosedives and everything fails into explosions and death but.....

Do you guys want a +/- system? Really though, with the numbers I've offered, it's basically the same thing except from -5 to +5, but if they affect you folk that much, I suppose we could convert over, especially before we get too far.

Yes, yes?

I wouldn't mind that much

Although I do slightly prefer the ratios because they just seem a little clearer to me.

 

[Sangoku]

I agree. We all know ratios are not win/loss ratios, so why not keeping them if we find it clearer?

 

[The Star King]

Am I the only one that thinks link is better for facing kirby than ness?

Don't worry, bro. you're not alone. Most good players seem to think that. Not reading the thread I guess?

I wouldn't mind that much

Although I do slightly prefer the ratios because they just seem a little clearer to me.

I agree. We all know ratios are not win/loss ratios, so why not keeping them if we find it clearer?

How are they clearer, when the numbers seem like the represent something, and in reality, they don't? We've had people confused/thinking they are win ratios in this very thread.

 

[Battlecow]

That's why I said they were clearer TO ME.

the ratios just click better, IDK why. Maybe they confuse other people.

Like I said though, I don't really care. Let's pick one and roll with it.

 

[Sangoku]

Clearer in the sense we actually feel what they mean better since we are used to them. It's like odds (4:1 for example) don't tell me much as I never use them, but someone used to going to horse race will immediately feel their meaning. Dunno if that's clearly said lol.

Oh and I'm not arguing to have an impact, since I'm not even part of the whole discussion you do as you feel is best.

 

[The Star King]

Clearer in the sense we actually feel what they mean better since we are used to them. It's like odds (4:1 for example) don't tell me much as I never use them, but someone used to going to horse race will immediately feel their meaning. Dunno if that's clearly said lol.

"We are used to them" isn't going to convince me. This only applies to us, and not people in the future using the match-up chart for reference, which is a major purpose of the chart.

Oh and I'm not arguing to have an impact, since I'm not even part of the whole discussion you do as you feel is best.

Stop doing that :/

 

[B Link]

I've never posted here ever but I think if by +/- 5 you're not referring to stocks but INSTEAD some ambiguous strength or weakness then I kinda like it.

It's like those vague stats in rpgs where you have 1 more point in something like 'dexterity' which doesn't have the final statement in terms of who will win but clearly the number is higher lol so technically you can say there's some sort of "advantage" that could be going on here.

Another example is any sport where stats don't mean everything. Say, where a player averages 20 points per game against another player who averages 21. It doesn't mean the former player is better than the latter or that he/she is going to win but he/she does average more points lol.

In the end I still have to ask...why do this at all though? It still wouldn't be helpful to ANYONE (good players obv. not, but it might also make bad players worse lol) and I don't see any value in spending time doing this matchup stuff. You could talk about it (thats fine) but putting numbers like 65:35 is crazy imo

But yeah maybeee I COULD see how a +1/-1 system would be somewhat interesting (not a +5/-5 its too much or 75:25 ratios and stuff which are incredibly specific even though I feel its impossible to be so specific) in the context that I mention above

 

[Sangoku]

Stop doing that :/

Doing what? What I meant is that I'm not particularly in favour of ratio, I don't really care. But I could understand why we (some) prefer them. But you're right in saying that it's not good for future viewers.

 

[The Star King]

Doing what? What I meant is that I'm not particularly in favour of ratio, I don't really care. But I could understand why we (some) prefer them. But you're right in saying that it's not good for future viewers.

Never mind I interpreted that incorrectly >_>. When you said "I'm not part of this whole discussion", I thought you meant that your opinion isn't important enough to be a part of this discussion or something. You downsize your opinion pretty often on Smashboards.

 

[Tech_EDGE]

edit...........

 

[Fish641]

Any rating system is worthless unless you can match up the +/- or xx:xx to something in particular. If it's stocks (+5 meaning equal skill lets one person win without dying or 75:25 meaning they have a 3:1 kdr), then you have something to go off of, especially since damage doesn't translate equally from character to character.

 

[clubbadubba]

I've said this before and I agree with fish, however stock ratings wouldn't work because there isn't enough disparity among the ratings. Even the worst matchups don't end up in 4 or 5 stocks between even players.

I would prefer the numbers to be something tangible, so people know what they mean when they say a number for a matchup. 'Advantage' means a different thing to everyone, as I've said before.

Seems like we are sticking with this ad-disad system unfortunately, but if we are going to it should be the +/- system. So far any new person in the thread either has to clarify what they mean, or doesn't clarify, and almost certainly thinks they mean win ratio. And future clarity is not a bad reason to switch either.

Also, as long as we make sure to compare the matchup numbers with ones we've already done and make sure we are being consistent, the vagueness of the system shouldn't be too much of a problem, so I'll live.

 

[The Star King]

Having the rating system represent something specific would be nice, but I don't think there's anything that would realistically work. Whether it's win ratio, stock ratio, etc., in the end, it's still all Super Theory Bros. The only way I could see this working is if we had a lot of tournament data to go off of, but we do not.

 

[ciaza]

Agreed with Star King. Stock ratios nor win ratios would work. Advantage system seems to work best and clarifying what "advantage" means would become apparent as we go on. For example a "large advantage" would be Fox - Samus, moderate advantage might be Kirby - Yoshi, small advantage Luigi - Samus, etc.

Whether we use actual wordings, +/-, or a ratio system to describe this advantage shouldn't matter much. I'm fine with keeping our current system as long as we make sure that people know that things like 60:40 describes a character advantage rather than some sort of ratio I don't see a problem. And let's face it, there's not thousands of us here, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get everyone on the same page.

 

[clubbadubba]

No, it wouldn't be super hard to keep everyone on the same page, but why do that if we don't have to? We should convert to plus minus for future contributors to this thread and future reviews of the final result.