@
Thinkaman
I got a good laugh out of your post, but as usual some minor disagreement from me:
The problem is that only 15-20 characters have consistent enough matchup ratios down the board to be considered viable enough to win a national competition (local doesn't really matter; anyone can win with any character if the competition is lax enough). Competitors at the national level basically will see the game as including only those characters. If ZSS were to be nerfed to the level of Bowser Jr. tomorrow (whom I'd say is at about the 33rd spot), she'd basically be nerfed out of the game as far as top level is concerned, unless Sheik and co. were similarly nerfed.
It definitely would feel bad if Pikachu were nerfed like that tomorrow and I knew that I would no longer be able to win the Sheik MU. Is it a step in the right direction? Sure, Pikachu does deserve nerfs, as does ZSS. But the direct result of such a nerf would be that I would have to choose another character and relearn tournament strategies in order to be a competitor at the highest level. That
should feel bad, and you can't really blame people for complaining about that.
A better analogy here is that you have two kids who were both given three shiny red trucks, and one kid had two of them taken away after 6 months, with his parents telling him, "Now, Johnny, you can't actually have these three trucks, because it's not fair to other kids in the world who have even less than you do," while the other got to keep all three.
Having something taken away is always worse than being given less of something than someone else. Basic human psychology.
Random analogy of my own: suppose there are 15 world-class soccer teams who all have an equivalent chance of winning the world cup this year. The 5th best team is suddenly told that it must give up 3 of its best members because it is too good relative to 10 other teams that are competing but probably don't have a chance to win, while the other 14 don't get touched. Would feel pretty bad even if it is objectively fair.
Don't follow that analogy too closely (any analogy is weak if you follow it closely enough), just trying to get the point across that there is a legitimate reason for complaints.
I'm slightly taking your post out of context, though: in this particular case, I agree with you that the Diddy nerf was not significant enough to dislodge him from a viable spot, so there shouldn't be any complaining. And if Pikachu were actually to be nerfed tomorrow, I myself would just go ahead and pick someone else so that I could stay in the competition rather than complaining. But I don't mind the complaining as a general principle, so I thought it'd be good to view it through another perspective.