Mike Ross' Matchup Philosophy

[ESP_-Mystique]

I think it's really dangerous to believe in anyone's philosophy or idea and opinion. I have always had a different perspective on match-ups , since numbers and letters seem more like a matrix - archetype. I haven't been able to discern what 7-3 or 5-5 is neither. It's seems completely illogical to me. There are way too many variables and possibilities in the course of a match. To narrow these variables seems to be a way of being definitive or absolute , which I completely cringe at. I believe each character has their own strengths and weaknesses , and the particular tool to deal with certain situations. It's has a lot to do with the player as well. You can't play a match at its highest possible level , and impose your own self-limitations on everyone else by saying it's 5-5 or 4-6. But It's alright to entertain the thought.

If a match is 7-3 , that's basically telling me I have a 30% chance of winning , and a 70% chance of losing , based on my skill and character tools. But it's still just too much , because you can't measure skill. The only thing you can do is say if either they are good or bad. But you can compare character's tools and what they have to offer. That still wouldn't make either character better than the other. It depends on how you adapt to the situation , and use your characters' tool effectively. I have seen many match-ups charts and tier lists , and they always change. Of course this is based on someone else's opinion and experiences , not our own.

It's best to think own your own , and do things your way. Tier lists and match-up charts are too unreliable and opinionated. it's takes away from creativity and learning as much about your character as possible. There's just too much to delve into for something to be 5-5 or for a character to be graded based on performance like in grade school. That is so silly to me...

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

I usually just pick my character and play the game tbh. I very rarely talk matchup numbers because in the end it really doesnt matter to me. I either win or I don't. In mk I couldnt really get anywhere with any character besides cage (although now my reptile is pretty solid) and because of that like 80 percent of my tournament losses are to Kabal and Kenshi. But I dont sit there and think, man kabal destroys cage, what the hell i ost because of the matchup. I just think, I lost, what can I do better. I remove the matchup from the equation and only think player vs player. Is this a good philosophy? I have no idea. But it at least keeps me from making excuses lol. So overall, I think matchups have too many variables and too many perspectives to be seen from to be given a number.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Seems like people have trouble differentiating between psychology and analysis.

Psychology = "I can meet this player on even ground if I play well enough/better than him"

Analysis = "This matchup is a large, but not hopeless disadvantage for me due to game design and character tools"

In the world of personal psychology, you can tell yourself anything you want to feel like a winner.

In the world of realistic analysis, there ARE some matchups that are virtually even, some that give one character a slight advantage, and some that give a character big advantages. You can't get away from it, it's game design.

 

[PND_Ketchup]

@PND_Ketchup, I remember you saying this some time ago, that you should treat most matches as a potential 5-5

The way I used to treat matchups in MK9 with Sektor was that you shouldn't focus on what you CAN'T do, and focus on what you CAN do. Some matchups didn't let you throw missiles, or use up missiles after combos, that sucks yeah, but there were always other things you could do to stay in the matchup.

I guess weaker characters were a little different if they had less tools, but it helped me stay a character specialist for the lifespan of MK9.

 

[SAREDODEVIL]

long live to MIke fucking Ross