this kind of discussion is honestly stupid because srk’ers aren’t as good or knowledgable at smash as us and we aren’t as good at sf as srk’ers. not to mention the games are so different we should even compare sagat to mk.
Not speaking of myself yet but some people play both games >_>
title should be changed to “Metaknight is the tourney scene”
He’s 60:40 with Rufas, Balrog, Bison and Blanka, and 70:30 with Zangeif. He’d 5:5 with Ryu and Akuma. These are the top characters in Street Fighter from what I can tell.
Meta-Knight, last time I checked, is 50:50 with Falco, Diddy, and Snake, and 60:40 with Dedede. Most match ups were 50:50 with some 60:40s in the mix. This didn’t include a lot of the low tier characters (had Yoshi and Pokemon Trainer).
EDIT: Kirby and Wario also go 50:50 with him. He has 60:40 on the rest of the upper tiers (A and B) and 70:30 with Bowser, although I question the Marth and Mr. Game and Watch match-ups. So, yeah, Sagat has far better match-ups as he has the advantage against the best characters. Meta-Knight is only 50:50 with the best characters.
If 55:45 MK=50:50 to you, then yes, you are correct. In that case, characters like Sagat in SF4 and Nu in BB:CT are, in fact, stronger, since they flat out have the advantage against other top tier characters.
I guess the main thing that pisses people off is that MK is considered “easy mode” compared to the other top tiers that have “unique” stuff that take a while to learn (i.e. Diddy’s banana tricks, Snake’s downthrow mindgames, Ice Climber’s 0-Death grab, etc.).
MK floors pretty much all the characters mentioned.
Snake and diddy are the only exceptions.
PT certainly doesn’t, and only the most crazy PT mains would think that.
Yoshi was a long time ago, and then MK’s pressure game improved and he lost the spike out of chaingrab (his shield is shit cause he can’t jump out).
Kirby gets destroyed, he can get past MK’s disjointedness and lacks good approach options.
Wario gets outzoned.
Diddy, there’s still a definate advantage, but when you simply it gets rolled in. IMO, same with snake.
That’s not what I found out, unless you have a more up to date match-up list. Otherwise, the most recent ones I’ve found put him at primarily 50:50.
You must be looking at the japanese match-ups, and while they do certain things better then us, their MK metagame is far less developed.
And they’re a heck of a lot more generous in their match-up ratios (there wasn’t a single 80-20 or worse on their list, even with ganondorf vs. IC, and ganondorf literally can’t do anything if ICs are ahead because anything will get him grabbed).
Falco, Diddy, yoshi, and wario were considered for 50-50, but that was tossed out a long time ago, so yes, you’re behind the times here, that was hype mainly.
PT was never considered.
However, Yoshi lost his spike from grab release on mk (doesn’t work, but we thought it did), and while he really can beat mk’s offensive game, he has nothing against his defensive game (can pivot grab mk out of everything, but mk destroys his offensive game as easily).
Falco is generally considered a 60-40 in MK’s favor because of his defensive game. It’s actually worse because most people don’t consider planking, but he has no options against it.
Wario gets outzoned again, and he loses to planking pretty dismally. Without planking, 60-40, possibly 55-45 at best, but only because he kills early.
Diddy and snake are reletively legit, MK has a clear but small advantage on both in general, so they’re 55-45s, however Diddy only has one really good stage, FD, and everyone bans it against him.
I help make match-up lists for smash, I’m sorry, your data is flat-out wrong. The closest MK has to even match-ups are snake and diddy.
The he’s equal to Sagat as he has a 50:50 on Akuma and Ryu, and they are about the same distance on the their respective teir list.
I don’t see anything though supporting your accusation, so I can only believe what I’ve looked up. I can’t find anything else on match-ups.
Please go to smashboards, check the character boards (just like pretty much all the SF4 character boards have here), they all have their own match-up charts.
Granted, the mk match-up chart tends to be more generous then it should, but it shows in general the approximate MUs.
Now, I’m not saying that he should be banned, just that you grossly underestimate him, from what I understand (as a relative SF4 newbie) he’s about Sagat’s equal in terms of tier positions, and unless there’s a fundamental mindset change, he neither will be banned nor deserves it.
But I prefer to be precise, I refuse to ignore evidence contrary to my position.
And that was the info I used. Yet it is out of date? It means what you were using was out of date too.
Isn’t that what I’ve been saying. Even if only Diddy and Snake have a 50:50 on him, he’s still equal to Sagat.
…
No, you’re just wrong. Those are NOT the match-up ratios that are on smashboards.
Period.
The mk boards list nobody as worse then 55-45 advantage. Period.
No, it’s not a 50-50, there is a clear discernible difference between 55-45 and 50-50.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=179463
Read, please.
Of course, my critique of the MK boards has always been that the are too lenient with their MUs, and I have no problem pointing out which ones and why.
Actually, he’s probably a tad better, but whatever.
The point is that you should be giving the correct info to support your conclusions.
OK, what they hell do you want. I said my source, you say it’s wrong and post the exact same source.
If you missed it, I’ll say it again. 55:45 is pretty much 50:50. It’s too close to make any distinction and since it’s so close could be argued any way as any distinction would be minor. Street Fighter only does it in incitements of 10 so if Meta-Knight seems better, it’s the scoring system, not that the character is comparatively better.
I gave the same info as you, so my conclusion is only as wrong or right as yours.
No, 45-55 is NOT 50-50, there’s a vast difference between “wins by a small but perceptible margin” and “goes dead even”.
I know what you’re saying about SF, but the reality is that 55-45 would be covered under 60-40, not 50-50 in SF terms. A disadvantage is a disdvantage, from there it’s a matter of degrees, a minor disadvantage cannot be rolled into dead even. This is especially true since the conceptual basis for smash MUs (as most people understand them) is different, 55-45 isn’t a percentage, it’s a difficulty rating, and would act more like a 60-40 in terms of percentages. From there you hit abysmally high percentages very quickly.
So, at this point it’s not your source of the feel of the community that’s wrong, it’s your interpretation of the numbers.
That and the low tier match-ups, which are honestly totally off the wall, what in God’s good name made you believe that PT goes even with MK for example?
Regardless, rightness of a conclusion rests on rightness of interpretation, it’s common for two people with the exact same information to come to totally opposite conclusions.
Furthermore, I’m not saying they’re right, I’m saying this is the general feel of the community, my “information” for match-ups is the actual data and how how-level play functions in smash, and I’ll gladly explain why MK wins each noted match-up. Community is a guideline, the data itself tells all.
i dont mind facing an MK at all, shit good Marios give me more trouble
This.
You missed what I said and can’t do match.
First, 55:45 is not covered in 60:40 because it’s half way between 60:40 and 50:50, meaning it’s in the middle. Neither cover it. My point was that is was pointless to have 55:45 because the margin is so small that anyone could argue it to be 50:50 or 45:55. If it’s within 5 points of the score.
55:45 means they are practically even, but one characters etches out by a little bit. The problem is what is that little bit, and how much does it matter. You see. The argument becomes based on small amounts of evidence and not the entire match up. Since the topic is so small, it could just as easily be irrelevant, not realistic or even untraceable, meaning 50:50 is just as plausible. Heck, I could bring as small point that is just as irrelevant/unrealistic/untraceable for the other character and call it 45:55. There is no point is using increments of 5 because the gap is too small. With that in mind, I claimed Meta-Knight has 50:50 match-ups, not 55:45.
Also, you can’t round up and here is why. Let’s say you have a situation where the match up is 95:5. Using your logic, we could attribute it to 100:0. But this match-up is impossible because you can never have one player win 100% of the time because of the character match ups. It could only happen if the character always runs away and wets his pants or blows up or something when fighting character X. Otherwise, the match up would have to be a lower margin then 100:0. So, 90:10 is more realistic. So, then, why would 55:45 be 60:40 when 95:5 is 90:10 (rounding down, not up). It’s not consistent. Also, this would mean at least two numbers would be the same. So 95:5 is 90:10, 85:15 is 80:20, 75:25 is 70:30 and 65:35 is 60:40. But wait, how can that be when 55:45 and 65:35 both become 60:40. That would mean the margin would be about almost 20 points. The range would be too big, eliminating the need for having the gap anyway.
Also, the reason increments of 10 are used is to define the boundaries. 55:45 is too small of a margin and doesn’t define the match up. 50:50 is an even match up. 60:40 is a match up that is slightly in one character’s favor. So what is 55:45? Somewhere in between. So, that means 55:45 is between even match up and advantage slightly in one character’s favor. So is it very slightly in one characters favor? Perhaps where they may be almost even. You see my point?
So all I did was eliminate the problems others created by having a 55:45 match up. There is no point to this match up as the margin is too small creating all kinds of problems and when the match up is 50:50 anyway if 100:0 is impossible.
Also
So, at this point it’s not your source of the feel of the community that’s wrong, it’s your interpretation of the numbers.
Ok, a minute ago you said my source are wrong. Now they are right? Did you realize this after saying my sources were wrong when they were your sources. Perhaps rather then saying I have a point, you just change what you originally said.