What Can Determine A "Bad Match Up"

[RelentlessOhio]

The ability to make a character fight outside of their given archatype is the easiest way to put it.

Take Sub Zero for example. He wants yo control space, turtle and keep zoning in check with projectile trades. When he cannot do this and is forced outside of his comfort zone it becomes a bad MU.

AKA if he can't ice clone jail your ass in the corner, he can't do much of anything.

 

[HellblazerHawkman]

Is if you are playing Cyborg a valid answer?

 

[Scoot Magee]

If you want to experience bad match ups first hand pick Green Arrow and play against anybody.

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

The ability to make a character fight outside of their given archatype is the easiest way to put it.

Take Sub Zero for example. He wants yo control space, turtle and keep zoning in check with projectile trades. When he cannot do this and is forced outside of his comfort zone it becomes a bad MU.

Amen

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

What @Fractured_Shadow said is truth. Forcing a character to play outside their archetype is text book bad MU.

For NW, cyborg and sinestro are great examples. I can't rushdown without counter zoning. Counter zoning isn't as easy as it is with scorp, bat girl or even raven. It's outside his main archetype. (Rushdown/Turtle).

This is a good thread. Aquaman doesn't allow people to play their game because he is better at most versions of it...same for MMH. Hence S++

 

[Gh0sty]

J/k. Playing a character with multiple losing MU's can really change your perspective on the game for the better. Overcoming a really bad MU for your character is a lot more satisfying than just using your character's superior tools to win without having to think too much about what you're doing. I agree with @Fractured_Shadow on his definition as well.

 

[sub_on_dubs]

Losing in a ft5 online set.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

I vote limiting mobility because the more mobility you have the more freedom you have to play your game or an alternative gameplan.

Limiting attack options is one of those "on paper" arguments but don't necessarily hold true in practice. For example you will often hear players say "this is a good matchup because I can blow up all of their wake up attacks so all I need is one knockdown." or "My pokes beat all of their pokes", "my anti-air beats all their air attacks free and leads to 50% damage + corner carry". What these players often don't take into consideration is that their opponent doesn't have to wake up attack, press buttons or jump.

Your 60% anti-air is only relevant if your opponent jumps in on you. If they stay grounded the whole game you lost an illusory advantage. Same with wake up attacks. You might be able to stuff all of their options but if they just happen to have solid defense and make all the right blocks and throw techs then you don't really have any real advantage. And it's the same with pokes.

One of the best examples of this "economy of options" is Snake Eyez beating Ricky Ortiz's anti-Gief Rufus:

Justin Wong and Ricky Ortiz have developed a Rufus tactic that on the surface appears to shut down Gief's main gameplan completely: They just stay outside of SPD range and harass him with cr.fierce, sweep and occasional s.mk. If Gief tries to go for his best footsie buttons, he gets blown up or pushed back, if he tries to jump he eats EX Snake Strike.

So what does Snake Eyez do? He chooses the option of doing nothing. If he doesn't jump, you can't anti-air him and if he doesn't press buttons you can't counter hit him. Knowing Ricky is trying his best to stay out of SPD range, he decides to walk and block, walk and block. Until he sees an opening or Ricky makes a mistake. Since all the normals he's blocking don't inflict chip, all Snake Eyez needs is a few hits/trades and one or two SPD to win.

That's a great example of breaking down an already broken down matchup, adjusting to your opponent by not giving them what they want and beating them at their own game. It goes to show that matchup numbers are only a starting point.

 

[Gh0sty]

I vote limiting mobility because the more mobility you have the more freedom you have to play your game.

Limiting attack options is one of those "on paper" arguments but don't necessarily hold true in practice. For example you will often hear players say "this is a good matchup because I can blow up all of their wake up attacks so all I need is one knockdown." or "My pokes beat all of their pokes", "my anti-air beats all their air attacks free and leads to 50% damage + corner carry". What these players often don't take into consideration is that their opponent doesn't have to wake up attack, press buttons or jump.

Your 60% anti-air is only relevant if your opponent jumps in on you. If they stay grounded the whole game you lost an illusory advantage. Same with wake up attacks. You might be able to stuff all of their options but if they just happen to have solid defense and make all the right blocks and throw techs then you don't really have any real advantage. And it's the same with pokes.

One of the best examples of this "economy of options" is Snake Eyez beating Ricky Ortiz's anti-Gief Rufus:

Justin Wong and Ricky Ortiz have developed a Rufus tactic that on the surface appears to shut down Gief's main gameplan completely: They just stay outside of SPD range and harass him with cr.fierce, sweep and occasional s.mk. If Gief tries to go for his best footsie buttons, he gets blown up or pushed back, if he tries to jump he eats EX Snake Strike.

So what does Snake Eyez do? He chooses the option of doing nothing. If he doesn't jump, you can't anti-air him and if he doesn't press buttons you can't counter hit him. Knowing Ricky is just trying to stay out of SPD range, he decides to walk and block, walk and block. Until Ricky corners himself. Since all the normals he's blocking don't inflict chip, all Snake Eyez needs is a few hits/trades and/or one or two SPD to win.

That's a great example of breaking down an already broken down matchup, adjusting to your opponent by not giving them what they want and beating them at their own game. It goes to show that matchup numbers are only a starting point.

Snake Eyez is hype AF to watch! Great write up as well!!

 

[Protagonist_1]

@NorCal-Cyborg I think @EMPEROR_THEO said it best, a topic like this is more geard toward fighting game philosophy in general. I play cyborg as well (still learning the character), but what constitutes a bad matchup isn't really as clear cut as it should be.

Usually it can be a variety of factors (from the top of my head):

• The opposing character shuts down primary tools that force your character to play a different style or shuts down your character's options (Example: Subzero vs. Kenshi). This doesn't necessarily constitute a bad matchup however, because a character may be able to play a different style and manage the matchup evenly if they have the tools to do so. (Being taken out of a comfort zone doesn't necessarily means it's a bad matchup, but out of most times it will)
  
• Damage output. This can be ambiguous in meaning, but for example think of how much the opposing character can punish you for a mistake as compared to your character. (Green Arrow vs. The World)
  
• Neutral game. If a character has better normals, walkspeed, anti-air options, and jump in attacks, this gives the character a pretty huge advantage. (Aquaman has really good normals, and jump in attacks)
• Okizeme. This is the advantage the opposing character has on you when knocked down. (Ex. Bane vs. Zod)

This is all I can think of for now. If anyone would like to add, feel free to. I read a lot into fighting game philosophy, so topics like these are good to see.