Sangoku
Smash Master
I admire you <3. I would have loved to study math at the same time as med.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
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.
Good job guys! But Im still unsecure about the numbers. But kirby should be harder than fox for pika on DL.agreed on both kirby being better and falcon being overrated
That seems like the most accurat number then.65-35 isn't that unrealistic for Pika Fox. That's just Pika winning twice as many matches as Fox.
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.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.
Umm, if I'm understanding you right, isn't that what I am doing?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?
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.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?
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.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.
My opinion off the top of my head.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?
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RatioAt 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.
I'm aware of this.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.
Puff>>Luigi. How else could Star King beat me?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.
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?65-35 isn't that unrealistic for Pika Fox. That's just Pika winning twice as many matches as Fox.
WHAT? Really? How do they work then?From my understanding, that's not how MU numbers work though.
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.I mean if Pika-Ness is really 70-30, would you really expect a Ness to roughly win 1/3 games against a Pikachu?
asianaussie said: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. ...
Uh ... likelihood of victory = number of matches you win over a large sample. That's the definition of likelihood.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
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.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?
1) I feel like the exact opposite is true. I feel like variance is usually pretty high due to the abundance of combo/gimp opportunitiesSee, 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.
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.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.