Did I just read the words struggle and kabal in the same sentence????
This 100%. I know how to handle Kabal mainly because I've been playing him for so long. I can't prove that to anyone because no other character has been explored like I did with Kabal, mirrors wont prove anything. I really do believe a few characters have the potential to go even when people finally understand the match up. Another example is Lui Kang. It could be still 6/4 kabal since his hitbox but he has good tools to use against kabal. IMO, 6/4 doesn't mean its a bad match up.
6-4 is a bad matchup. Some 6-4s are very winnable, but they are bad matchups.
I didn't mean it like that. lol I meant as bad as most people think. Too me a lot of people think 6/4 is god awful when its not as bad. Another thing to point out is that you said some 6-4's are winnable. Wouldn't that mean its a 7/3 or worse? If its a 6/4, it is winnable. I really don't get how some 6/4's can be winnable and some can't. 6/4 is 6/4, not any worse.
REO said:
Some 6-4s are more winnable as others. For instance, I have to use Baraka as an example because that is the only one I can.
Isnt this exactly what I said? The 6-4s are all winnable to a degree, but some require more work than others. A 7-3 IMO means that while you have to put in work as your character, you can make many mistakes and still beat a flawless Baraka or other low tier character. Going along with that, lower tier characters nee to know their bad matchups. You have to know exactly when you can get something off of these characters and get damage or pressure whenever you can. The problem with bumping a bunch of 6-4s to 7-3s and 7-3s to 8-2s is that makes the matchup seem so much worse than it actually is. The Kabal matchup is by far Baraka's worst, and it is still not unwinnable or as bad as an 8-2. Even though KL is tough, there are still things Baraka can do to make the matchup 6-4. I think the problem is some people think 6-4 is like a slight advantage like REO said, but a lot of the community considers 6-4 to be an advantage, while 7-3 is a bigger advantage. People's matchup numbers always vary and they mean different things to different people. which is why people need to stop worrying so much about them and recognize which matchups are bad and how they need to deal with them. Knowing the matchups is MUCh more important than knowing some stupid numbers.
This is why a 10 point scale is stupid for a game with 100 hit points, 3 possible rounds, and hit points that reset on each win but meter that carries over. If some 6-4s are "more winnable" than others, then why shouldn't the matchup chart reflect that?
Out of curiosity, what kind of system would you recommend?
For overall matchups, a percentage makes the most sense to me. Total damage taken out of 3 rounds should be taken into consideration for each character. The difference between total damage divided by total number of rounds played would be the matchup.
Now I remember why I hardly ever post here.
Instead of being a cunt, why not tell my why I'm wrong and come up with an alternative?
That is all much much too complicated. Only the last part might be sort of helpful.
