BillStickers said:
My 100% was based on the 100 hit points that each character gets during one game.
Ah yeah, my bad.
BillStickers said:
a 6-4 match where Kabal is consistently down to the wire on life and gets that extra little bit of chip to win is different from a match where Kabal double flawlesses an opponent. In this community, both are equally likely to be matched as a "6-4". If you'll notice, the percentages I proposed weren't based on 100 matches, they were based on the average hitpoint difference after one match.
While a percentage might tell *you* nothing about a matchup, having "6-4" for 90% of the cast tells nothing to *me* about a matchup, especially with the varying opinions on what constitutes a 6-4 match. Apparently it varies anywhere from "slight advantage" to "completely crushing advantage".
My main point was that there needs to be a more quantitative way to rate matchups, because as it stands, there is no reliable way to get meaningful data from a 10 point scale.
Thanks for explaining, but I still think this is pointless. You say you have two reasons for wanting this revision to the scoring system (I can't see more than two, at least):
1) You say you cannot get meaningful data from the 10-point scale and would get more detail from a percentage which tallies to hit points.
Your percentages would be saying the exact same thing as the existing scale: about even, slight advantage, advantage, big advantage, extreme advantage. What extra detail is there in a lifebar percentage that makes it worth explaining to somebody else in any other words than those plain terms I quoted from REO? Moreover, your method would be more laborious and time-consuming to calculate because you'd be having to physically measure the lifebar percentages at KO, record this for all the rounds in a game/set of games (how many games would it take for your method to provide 'accurate' averaged results?), then average all those numbers to come to the same conclusions we all would have come to with the existing method. Plus you'd be having to measure it with a physical ruler instead of adding up combos, because single hits and chip damage don't give their damage values in real fights do they?
2) Other people cannot agree on 10-point figures and use them to mean drastically different things.
If a 6-4 "
varies anywhere from "slight advantage" to "completely crushing advantage"" for some people on this forum then the problem is not with the scale, it's with people not using the existing scale correctly. It's not difficult, 6-4 is a slight advantage and that's all there is to it. If somebody says a 6-4 match is "completely crushing", then it's either not a 6-4 or it's not completely crushing, it can't be both.
Of course you're welcome to use this method to satisfy yourself, I'm just saying it's a long-winded way of saying the same thing other people will have discovered themselves. I would not have the patience to do it and I can't imagine most other people would. And for this reason, I am out.
I can't wait for the day that the exploration of char's gets that far!! 
