TYM Community Tier List - New Matchup Chart System?

[NogunYesknife]

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.

Exactly, Its more Efficient and faster to type, but expresses the same thing. And noones suggesting changing the entire "match up data base" as you said in your above post. This is just an easier way to do things.

 

[Enenra]

I really like this.

 

[Hitoshura]

.5 in matchup charts are really necessary. It helps break tie breakers between characters. At no point should 2 characters have the same tier score ever. There no such thing as a tie in tier lists imo.

 

[THTB]

The problem, though, Hitoshura, is even with .5s, you can end up with exact same rankings on characters. .5s make it harder to do so, but it's still possible.

As far as the tradition goes, again, if being more accurate and efficient as a whole is possible, I have no problems. Our last concern with this list should be whether it's a familiar concept or not. We're out to attain an accurate, efficient matchup chart for a tier list. But this is up to you guys as to which system gets used. If you really don't want the change, vote no.

 

[Konqrr]

Boo... don't change anything.

 

[Playpal]

0 = 5-5
1 = 6-4
2= 7-3
3= 8-2
4=9-1

X vs Y is 6-4 in X's favour
X vs Y is +1 in X's favour

I really do not see the difference. If it ain't broke then don't fix it.

 

[MashPotatoTower]

the 5/5 systems is already this system in a different suit, except it doesn't undermind our match up intelligence.
say if one guy say a mu is 5/5 and the other says its 5.5/4.5 they are both wrong and both corect because the reall answer would be like 5.43233672362478973218 / 4.6739020129530214
But it looks like i can compare simular features with easy.
I could say that smokes teleport is a +1 to scorps, giveing him the advantage in that aspect alone. its eayser to understand.
but i dont think its a better in any way

 

[Zoidberg747]

More like:

1=5.5-4.5
2=6-4
3=6.5-3.5
4=3-7

And no, it is no different than having .5's. But I think we need to break away from the normal tier chart format because of how balanced the overall game has become. First off, there is no 2-8 matchups anymore. Baraka vs. Kabal is one of the worst matches I can think of(Kabal owns Baraka at all parts of the screen and in all aspects of each other's games) and it is still 3-7, maybe even 3.5-6.5. This new style makes more sense because instead of saying "At the highest level of play character A will beat character B 6 out of 10 times" it is more like saying "You will have an advantage against this character". Yes these both basically mean the same thing, but this new way is MUCH easier to understand for newer players looking to get in the competitive scene, and the pros who already know how to read a tier list. Basically it is easier to read for newcomers, that is the only real difference.

 

[bloodsport]

doesn't really make a difference. i vote we get emoticons like that though, and use them for the matchup chart instead of abbreviations. it's very fancy.

 

[Playpal]

The fact that 3 people posted a different interpretation of what the point system means to them just shows that both MU systems are the same. People are going to have their own definition of what 6-4 means or what +1 means. The flaws are still there.

 

[Death]

Yeah...

o- Even
+1- 5.5-4.5
+2- 6-4
+3- 7-3
+4- 8-2 or worse

I like the traditional MUs but not using .5s. 5-5, 6-4, 7-3 etc should be the best route to go under. I think it can make the tier list the most accurate that way.

 

[KingHippo]

I say what isn't broke doesn't need to be fixed.

 

[THTB]

o- Even
+1- 5.5-4.5
+2- 6-4
+3- 7-3
+4- 8-2 or worse

I want to comment on this. For one, how does it make sense to compare +1 (minor advantage) to a 5.5-4.5, but we have to skip 6.5-3.5 completely to make a comparison for +3? I'm still not getting this.

The new system is the exact same until you realize not everyone here even agrees on what means what even in the traditional system. And, to be 100% honest, to come to an agreement for the old system, we have to either use .5s (Which a bunch of people are against already simply because winning a half a match is taken far too literal, and it does make enough of a difference), or skip them and just reinstate 8-2 (But most agree there is no matchup worse than 8-2, and 8-2 by technicalities is not truly unwinnable). It's not broken, yes, but we have yet to develop a standard everyone agrees on. That is the main problem with how we currently do a chart.

The new system uses points everyone can agree on. A minor advantage, in the opinions of two people, can be a difference of .5, literally. Both people agree that the advantage is minor, though. This allows a much more common ground. It throws away the theoretical perception of "This character wins the matchup by 6 matches out of 10" and reinforces the idea that "This character has a minor advantage". It's simple. No ratios. Just a point value anyone could easily agree on, regardless of what their personal opinion on the ratio is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for staying with the tradition, but honestly, we have to come up with some standard or else this just isn't gonna work out as well as we want.

 

[bloodsport]

+4- 8-2 or worse

i don't think there's any 8-2 MU's, that's horrific. basing off of tools alone maybe mileena/sheeva.. can't think of any other potentially unwinnable situations lol.

 

[THTB]

8-2 is not an unwinnable matchup. EXTREMELY hard/easy, yes, but not that impossible.

Small fact: 8-2 and 9-1 are used in ST, which is widely considered to be a nicely balanced SF game.

 

[Thead]

Using a point system based on matches won out of 100 implies that humans are machines and will perform to that level every single time without fail.

It's much more accessible, and reasonable to say a matchup is "slightly in advantage" etc.

I like the newly proposed system.

 

[bloodsport]

8-2 is not an unwinnable matchup. EXTREMELY hard/easy, yes, but not that impossible.

Small fact: 8-2 and 9-1 are used in ST, which is widely considered to be a nicely balanced SF game.

well imo, winning a 1-9 MU is comparable to winning the lottery lmao. i'm just talking about in ft2/3's, very high chance it's not gonna happen.

 

[Sage Leviathan]

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.

Quoting this for convienence ^-^

 

[THTB]

Again, there's choosing to skip 6.5-3.5 matches. Also, there is definitely a split among people as far as the numbers they use...some of those players being nominees for representatives, even.

 

[CJKRattlehead]

I actually don't like my vote anymore, this new system is harder to tally up altogether. The set of 10 thing seems fine the way it is.

 

[MKF30]

I like the old system better 5-5, 6-4 etc.

 

[BookBurning]

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.

Albeit I do agree that it is partially an issue of semantics, I don't think that basing anything off of a want to "Not emulate anything the Smash community does." Is credible, or a good argument against it at all. Regardless even if I'm in favor of this system, I don't really see it making such an enormous difference for it to change anything. I like the approach of generalities though, I think it creates less room for opinions and in a way becomes more exact by being less exact.

 

[M2Dave]

Again, there's choosing to skip 6.5-3.5 matches.

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.

 

[Death]

i don't think there's any 8-2 MU's, that's horrific. basing off of tools alone maybe mileena/sheeva.. can't think of any other potentially unwinnable situations lol.

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.

 

[BookBurning]

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.

Yeah but there's no good arguments for being against it either. The exactness of .5s is absolutely retarded, it's a fighting game and because of it's nature has a myriad of countless random occurrences that can happen in almost any matchup. Plus, everyone on this site including You(M2Dave.) Tom Brady, Reo, and every other known player in this community has proven atleast once that their knowledge of tier-lists is almost god awfully wrong.

This new system allows fighting game matchup charts to be debatable in every facet while still disallowing room for stupid "logic." It lets the matchups general scale be known yet disregards stupid and pointless minute details that vary constantly. I never understood why older generation players always seem consistently against change in anything; it drives me insane.

Dontay was never debating that the new matchup chart was "GREATLY SUPERIOR." In any way nor was he saying that the old matchup chart wasn't okay the way it was. He was simply asking if he thought it was better, and yeah, it is, even if it's by a small margin.