After tallying stats from Evo 2015, here’s some interesting data. I wanted to break down some metrics for region representation, character selection, and stage selection. Some of the information will very likely confirm some of your speculative thoughts, while other data may surprise you.
Region Representation
Region | Top 32 | Top 16 | Top 8 |
Socal | 10 | 5 | 1 |
Norcal | 4 | 1 | 0 |
Tri-State | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Sweden | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Florida | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Mexico | 2 | 0 | 0 |
North Carolina | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Arizona | 1 | 1 | 1 |
MD/VA | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Germany | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Georgia | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Michigan | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Washington | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Kansas | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Table 1: Top 32 by Area
Socal was very well represented in the bracket with 10 out of 32 players. It’s not to say that Socal has significantly stronger players, but they do have a slew of heavy hitters. Many strong players seem to come from isolated regions (PPMD from North Carolina, Ice from Germany, etc…), and grouping players by larger regions could serve to give a better idea of which area is stronger (see table 2).
Region | Top 32 | Top 16 | Top 8 |
West Coast | 16 | 7 | 2 |
South | 4 | 4 | 3 |
East Coast | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Europe | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Midwest | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Mexico | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Japan | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Table 2: Top 32 by Region
The West Coast was very well represented, filling up half of the Top 32. Yet, it was the South that ended up with the most players in Top 8 with 3 (Hungrybox, PPMD, Plup). On any given day, it seems that the “filler spots” of Top 8 can be represented by any region. To no surprise, Armada and Leffen represented Europe in the Top 8 and, perhaps, if more Europeans had the means to travel, then we would see more international representation in the Top 32/48 of a Super National. With that being said, the international scene filled 6 Top 32 slots with no Canadian representation, strangely enough.
Character Representation
Total: 240 (120 games x 2 characters)
Character | Wins | Losses | Total | Percent Picked | Win % |
Fox | 40 | 41 | 81 | 33.8% | 49.4% |
Sheik | 11 | 15 | 26 | 10.8% | 42.3% |
Marth | 7 | 18 | 25 | 10.4% | 28.0% |
Jigglypuff | 14 | 6 | 20 | 8.3% | 70.0% |
Samus | 10 | 9 | 19 | 7.9% | 52.6% |
Falco | 11 | 5 | 16 | 6.7% | 68.8% |
Ice Climbers | 10 | 6 | 16 | 6.7% | 62.5% |
Pikachu | 6 | 6 | 12 | 5.0% | 50.0% |
Peach | 6 | 5 | 11 | 4.6% | 54.5% |
Captain Falcon | 3 | 5 | 8 | 3.3% | 37.5% |
Luigi | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.3% | 33.3% |
Yoshi | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.3% | 33.3% |
Table 3: Characters Used in Top 32
In the top 32, we had a total of 12 characters represented, which is ~46.1% of the roster. For a game that’s been out for over a decade, that’s quite impressive! Interestingly enough, Fox had a sub-50 win percentage. Many would glance at this stat and come to the wrong conclusion. Keep in mind that when you have many players pick the same character, their average skill level may not be as high as a character that is seldom picked by a specialist (ex. Axe and Pikachu). On the other spectrum, Jigglypuff had a 70% win rate (14-6), but was represented solely by Hungrybox. Despite our character diversity, we still are guilty of a Fox-dominant meta with a 33.8% pick rate, over triple the next closest character (Sheik).
Stage
Stage | Percentage | Total |
Battlefield | 38.3% | 46 |
Dreamland | 15.0% | 18 |
Final Destination | 8.3% | 10 |
Fountain of Dreams | 6.7% | 8 |
Pokemon Stadium | 17.5% | 21 |
Yoshi’s Story | 14.2% | 17 |
Total | 120 |
Table 4: Stages Picked in Top 32
As expected, Battlefield was the most common played stage in Top 32 with a 38.3% pick rate. Against common intuition, Pokemon Stadium was chosen the 2nd most with a 17.5% pick rate. Despite people’s distaste towards Pokemon Stadium, it seems that many would rather allow Pokemon Stadium and ban a heavier counter-pick such as Final Destination, Fountain of Dreams, or Dreamland depending on matchup.
Stage | Percentage | Total |
Battlefield | 73.9% | 34 |
Dreamland | 6.5% | 3 |
Final Destination | 6.5% | 3 |
Fountain of Dreams | 6.5% | 3 |
Yoshi’s Story | 6.5% | 3 |
Total | 46 |
Table 5: Stage Strike (Game 1) Data
To no one’s surprise, Battlefield was the preferred opening stage by a landslide with a 74% pick rate. With reasonable platforms, a medium size, and average blast zones, it is one of the most, if not, the most neutral, out of the tournament legal stages.
Who were the people from MD/VA?
Chudat
Kansasboyz we really out here
Is it even possible to make a case for a non-Battlefield stage being the most neutral?
I don’t agree that a 46.1% character representation in top 32 is impressive. I actually find that number disappointing, acceptable at best. I analyzed the USFIV top 32 and in comparison, it had a 65.9% character representation, with top 8 consisting only of unique characters. If you take into account that USFIV has vastly more characters available, it only makes the Melee character coverage look even worse.
It’s very clear that too many of Melee’s characters are not viable in competitive play and that the gap for the different tiers are too large. I like Fox but that doesn’t mean I want to see him play in every third game, he seems to be at least two tiers better than whoever is second best in the game and that’s a pretty big issue.
I think secondaries and counterpicks are a big reason why things are like they are, or more like the lack of them. The USFIV scene has only really started the whole multiple characters thing recently but they’ve caught on way faster than the Melee has, Armada being a prime but lonely example of a player that has adopted well with Y. Link and Fox aside from his Peach. Hopefully more players will follow and start picking up more “main” characters and try the counterpick wars, only problem is… which character counters Fox? I can only really think of Marth being close to fill that role unfortunately.
USF4 has been out for much less than Melee and has undergone patches to balance the game. Compare Melee’s 46% to SF3 (Hi Chun/Yun/Ken!), MVC2, or any game that’s been out for a long time (w/o patches) and you’ll see that the games will homogenize.
Why would I compare it to dead games that were never patched? I’m comparing similarly popular fighting games and if the game is new or not has nothing to do with it. You know very well that Nintendo never bothered to balance Smash and it’s the same with Smash 4. Sakurai even said he’s not going to balance it around competitive play and it shows as tournaments are still dominated by Diddy Kong, Sheik and Zero Suit Samus. So, if Melee was new it would still have gone the same road because the developers unfortunately don’t care about “esports”, which is sad for spectators since we won’t see the full potential with more characters being used, and there’s quite a few characters I’ve never even seen in tournament play.
What are you trying to say? I think you’re getting to caught up in details and not getting your point across. If you are just trying to say that fox is the best character, then okay we know this, 2 tiers above the second best character is just ridiculous tho, just think about what you are saying and what the definition of a tier is. Fox vs falco is usually considered VERY close to even by top players considering it, so the fact that you leave falco out worries me. I wouldn’t say that a 50-50 matchup alongside marth’s unanimously agreed on as favorable matchup (~55-60 favor) a dull counterpicking scheme at all. Fox is the best character in the game of course, but to say all that is very narrow minded, not even considering stage counter picks.
[…] character representation. 38.5% of the characters were played in Smash 4’s top 32 while Melee had 12 characters, or 46.1% of its roster represented at Evo’s top 32. As the meta game is young, it’s likely that player diversity will increase as time goes on […]