TYM Community Tier List - New Matchup Chart System?

[M2Dave]

I do think there are a couple 8-2s in MK9. MK is very balanced but there are some MUs worse than 7-3. IE, Mileena/Sheeva. IMO worst MU in the game. Possibly Sub vs KL/Kenshi could be 2-8. But 8-2 isnt unwinnable. Its just way harder to win then say a 3-7.

If Mileena vs Sheeva is an 8:2 match up, that means the Mileena player has an 80% chance of winning the match. That is an overwhelming advantage.

BookBurning, if the change is "by a small margin", why should the players go for it and convert all their match up charts? By the way, yes, I do think Smash is a joke, but I am just being practical here.

 

[Death]

Yeah 80% chance is still a big margin. Still winnable but very hard. When i see slight advantage. Im thinking more like 55% chance of winning. Which is why i think +1 is 5.5.

 

[THTB]

The old system includes 6.5:3.5 match ups. The old system is fine. I have yet to read any good arguments in favor of this new system.

And yet, people disagree on using 6.5-3.5.

I still don't get how my argument isn't good in the first place. Not everyone judges matchups with .5s, and that in itself causes problems. While we both agree we're at a major disadvantage but it's not unwinnable, we have a .5 difference in our numbers, and in truth, that's a notable difference. The new system ELIMINATES that, while remaining wholefully accurate. It becomes much easier to agree on numbers because everyone will be on the same page.

The way the .5 thread was headed, it really would've been a matter of time before the votes became 50/50 or very close to it.

 

[Mikemetroid]

I like the new system. Not only will it be easier for people who are new to the tournament scene to start off of but it has nothing really that confusing to deal with like .5s and such. My vote goes to the smashboards style, just because its simple and in this game I feel like the match ups shouldn't be written with the traditional style.

 

[Altaire]

Lmao, I knew something along those lines would be said by you.

But really, the problem with using 10-match-ratio is that everyone's opinion on the particular numbers can vary, and some people don't even like using .5s to calculate anything. I want everyone to be able to agree on numbers as much as possible.

At this point, I'm more worried about getting a matchup chart that's as accurate as can be. If we leave out .5s, the matchup numbers start becoming too vague. But .5s are very, very specific at times.

To be honest, I think .5s are necessary at this point, we just need to find a more ergonomic way to write them. You could always make scores out of 100 instead of 10, with only multiples of five allowed. For instance, if Sub vs. Noob is listed as a 65, that'd be like a 6.5 - 3.5 in Noob's favor.

Just a thought. I'm open to pretty much whatever, really.

 

[NYCj360]

ive never known how the .5 were valid ever. If its supposed to be based off a series to 10, theres no such thing as winning half a match, you lose it if you dont win it.

 

[RapZiLLa54]

ive never known how the .5 were valid ever. If its supposed to be based off a series to 10, theres no such thing as winning half a match, you lose it if you dont win it.

Hey man, I've beat you half a match plenty of times. But 80% resets beat out the other half lmao

 

[NYCj360]

A .5 matchup you say? Studies show that you win 50% of the time everytime the time bro

 

[RapZiLLa54]

Sex panther!

 

[Iustinus]

Anyone that says you can't have a 5.5-4.5 matchup because you can't win half a match just fails at math. It's just a ratio. Theoretically, you could have 5.3-4.7 matchups or any other combination, although no one's going to be that accurate, of course.

 

[bloodsport]

ive never known how the .5 were valid ever. If its supposed to be based off a series to 10, theres no such thing as winning half a match, you lose it if you dont win it.

i always figured a (for example) 5.5 meant a 55% chance to win the match.

100 points is the same thing as ft10s, this new one could be different, but it's all pretty much the same. just a new look.

 

[Altaire]

ive never known how the .5 were valid ever. If its supposed to be based off a series to 10, theres no such thing as winning half a match, you lose it if you dont win it.

I don't even look at it as a series of 10, per se, just a ratio. If it's 5.5 in x character's favor, they have a very slight advantage.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

Well at first I was against the idea of changing the old formula. But then I realized there's was no difference between the two so at this point it's just a matter of making it simpler for everyone to understand. And prettier lol.

-4: (close to) unwinnable
-3: large disadvantage/hard countered
-2: medium disadvantage
-1: small disadvantage
0: even
+1: small advantage
+2: medium advantage
+3: large advantage/hard counter
+4: (close to) unloseable

I wouldn't mind using this.

Doesn't matter anyway, because we can convert the numbers to the old system easily. So we could basically have both.

Decimals are inevitable if you're going to make an average of community MU charts. For example: If someone thinks a MU is 6-4 but 2 other guys think it's 5-5, then the average would be 5.3333. That's how most community MU charts are made anyway. Then you either round up or down to .5 or leave it as is.

 

[Prinz]

Just look at these numbers, which look scarier:
Mileena vs Sheeva 8-2
Mileena vs Sheeva +3
Knowing that most of the people agree that MK9 is pretty balanced in match-ups, the SmashBros system does fit better.

 

[xxteefxx]

it's the same system, just a different way to show it....the fun part, is instead of adding huge integers, u can just add the numbers all together....kinda easier and more appealing to the viewer.

i like! approve

 

[RomeoBravoDelta]

With a tier list as compressed as MKs, I think we need .5s. Personally, I feel like a .5 more accurately conveys how close a match-up is over "small (dis)advantage."