Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

TYM Community Tier List - New Matchup Chart System?

AFter reading the OP, would you prefer this system for a matchup chart, or no?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 70.3%

  • No

    Votes: 11 29.7%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
THTB

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
Okay, I know there's another poll going on about whether to use .5s or not in the community matchup chart already, but I had to share this.

I was browsing Smashboards randomly, and decided to check on their tier list. Here's what I found: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12264844&postcount=1

I learned that they no longer use a ratio system based on a set of 10 matches theoretically. Instead, they use a totally new system as you can see.

-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
Click to expand...
Here is the explanation:

As you look at the matchup chart, you will find the system we used isn’t the ratio system that seems common these days. The most important reason is that it has no clear underlying structure and most people use it as 21-tier scale with 5-point increments. While there is a rough consensus as to what specific ratios mean, can you really defend (for example) that a matchup is 90:10 and not 85:15? A large part of the scale simply is close to meaningless and it lacks elegance as well as being too specific. For these reasons, we ended up going with the scale below. While 7 or 11 tiers were (probably) viable alternatives, we went with 9 and believe it to cover all major options. It will take some effort to do away with ratio thinking, but we believe this system to be less confusing in the long run.
Click to expand...
The existing issue with how we currently do matchup charts is exactly this...there's a really hard time reaching a consensus on what constitutes what, and the way the 10-match-ratio system works requires things to be a great deal too specific (using .5s). This style helps relieve those particular problems, IMO. If a matchup is a serious advantage, it's a serious advantage. +3. If the disadvantage is more than slight, but not to the point of being handicapped, it's a moderate disadvantage. -2. See? Not to mention, it's SO much easier to type out. No need for 4.5-5.5. Just type in -1 and be done lol.

I personally like it a lot. The question is, though, do you guys like it?

My question is, do you guys like the idea or should we keep going with what we do?
 
NKZero

NKZero

Warrior
i like the system as well. But are there are -4 or +4 in this game? What match-up is the equivalent of such a figure. The balance in MK9 is such that there aren't really any unwinnable/unlosable (these aren't real words lol) matches...
 
Z-911-Z

Z-911-Z

Bone and Metal
I think this system would make it easier to understand if a matchup is only slightly advantageous for a character or not to some. A lot of people put 5.5-4.5, when in reality 6-4 is pretty much the same thing in the definition of a match being slightly in favor or not.
 
THTB

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
There isn't a matchup that difficult in this game to where it is or close to unwinnable/unlosable. If anything we would just be using up to +3/-3.
 
Z-911-Z

Z-911-Z

Bone and Metal
NKZero said:
i like the system as well. But are there are -4 or +4 in this game? What match-up is the equivalent of such a figure. The balance in MK9 is such that there aren't really any unwinnable/unlosable (these aren't real words lol) matches...
Click to expand...
Anyone Vs. Shao Kahn(Non-AI)
 
M2Dave

M2Dave

Zoning Master
0: even (5:5)
+1: small advantage (5.5:4.5)
+2: medium advantage (6:4)
+3: large advantage/hard counter (7:3)
+4: (close to) unloseable (8:2)

It is really a matter of semantics. Nothing else. This system is not any more accurate or inaccurate than the one the community uses right now. Besides, 99% of all match up charts on this web site and MKU consist of the traditional match up chart numbers. Why change everything?

Besides, we should not emulate what a non-fighting game does.
 
THTB

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
m2dave said:
Besides, we should not emulate what a non-fighting game does.
Click to expand...
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.
 
M2Dave

M2Dave

Zoning Master
THTB said:
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.
Click to expand...
The two systems are more or less the same, man. What makes you think players will not argue about whether a match up is a "small advantage" or a "medium advantage"? Again, it is just a matter of semantics. Nothing else.

Besides, I am against copying anything the Smash community does. MK is a fighting game, a serious fighting game. The Smash community can construct any match up chart they like for their party game. I suggest sticking to traditional methods.
 
SwiftTomHanks

SwiftTomHanks

missiles are coming
I like this system much more since the "out of 10 system" focuses too much on a set of 10 rather than the theoretical match up itself.

I understand that both systems mean the same thing in the scoring; I just think it's best to look at the match up in and of itself rather than a best of X scenario.
 
Phase 3

Phase 3

Feels Good Man
m2dave said:
Besides, I am against copying anything the Smash community does. MK is a fighting game, a serious fighting game. The Smash community can construct any match up chart they like for their party game. I suggest sticking to traditional methods.
Click to expand...
First of all, it's ignorance like this that breeds hostility between communities. This type of mentality is entirely responsible for people looking down on the MK community to begin with, and it's the reason why people laugh at the FGC so much. It really is just a microcosm of humanity in general: we have a bunch of people united by a common thread only to tear each other apart because of insignificant differences. We need to drop the biased opinions and blind hatred, but asking that of your average fighting game player appears to be an exercise in futility. Whether or not you like a game, there's no reason to vilify or debase their community.

Secondly, we should approach this more logically. Our goal should be to evaluate a system's worth based on its inherent value opposed to any affiliation it might have with a specific community. That said, I do understand your points regarding semantics and the general similarities between the two systems; however, I think they each offer unique benefits.

This new system, as Hanks illustrated, focuses less on a theoretical set of ten. While it is true that we could simply swap out the names for 0 with 5:5, we could also just swap them out with "banana," "apple," and "grapes." That way, we could say "this matchup is bananas!"

Of course, these terms would still hold the same value, and ultimately nothing would change, but it'd be unnecessarily complicated. Similarly, with the 10-0 chart you'd have numerous unnecessary terms (10-0 vs 9-1 or 5.5-4.5). What this new system does is clean up the old one and make it more simplistic. It's like reviewing a film on a scale of 100 including point-fives. At some point, breaking things down too far simply isn't necessary. The difference between a 97.5 and a 97 would be, for all intents and purposes, negligible.

Match-up charts are not direct science and they're rooted, at least to some degree, in subjectivity (despite our attempts to remain wholly objective). Things evolve and change so trying to be too precise can actually prove to be too limiting. With so many variables in any given match-up, sometimes having slightly less options means slightly more.

For the record, I don't actually care what system we use. I'm merely trying to explain why the system isn't just a palette-swap of the old one.



Actually, scratch that. I vote we go with the assorted fruit system.
 
1man3letters

1man3letters

Alpha Tarkatan - Moderator
Moderator
hmmm ive never seen a matchup chart done in that manner but i would have no problem if it was used for the community chart and maybe for this chart a bit of change wouldnt be a bad thing
 
LEGEND

LEGEND

YES!
i like this new system but its still the same concept, i don't see any benefit by changing our MU format

second, it doesn't seem to cover a 6.5-3.5 option very well, but really how many of those are there anyway
 
Killphil

Killphil

A prop on the stage of life.
I don't think we need to change it at all. Whats the point? Most of the tier list threads drop into theory fighting anyway. We're all used to the traditional 5-5 one at this point. snipped*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.