I think a 100-0 matchup is theoretically possible, assuming both players are capable of basic, pre-memorized button inputs. For example, suppose a character can jump in the air and shoot fireballs, but there's a glitch that makes it so he doesn't have to come down after jumping. Suppose several characters cannot reach him after he jumps, because they cannot jump as high. If a player jumps as soon as the match starts and initiates said glitch, that player will win eventually every time after a fireball connects against certain characters. Fair enough?
What's stopping the other player from avoiding said fireballs?
What's guarantee that the player performing the glitch doesn't mess up and get hit?
Not to mention under our current ruleset that would count as stalling.
Again the only way a 100-0 is possible, is if input is not required for a win.
IMO, a 100-0 matchup is when you can perform a strategy that guarantees a win regardless of your opponent's actions. An "uncounterable" tactic, if you will.
If it requires your input as well then it's not a 100-0.
Humans can make mistakes, tactics can be overcome, strategies can be beaten.
I think a 90-10 matchup just means you have to outread/predict your opponent 91% of the time to win as the 10 guy. You obviously disagree. What do you think is the working definition for 90-10?
I personally feel the MU numbers represent how close to their most effective/established style a character can play to.
Peach vs MK on RC is a nightmare. Probably 70:30. Instead of turnip camping and dair combos, I mainly aim for clock wins when I play that match up.
Falco vs ICs? Also hell. No Chain grabs or nair approachs for me. I barely even laser to dash attack. It's mainly alot of phantasm running away and trying to force them to chase me in the air for bair assualts.
I even took the DDD challenge playing DK against a DDD who I taught to infinite.90-10 I believe.( He usually plays Marth, just wanted to see if it wasn't banned could ANYONE pick up DDD and win against great DK players, and my DK is average at best.) Had to go to RC. Had to stay in the air about 90% of the time. Had to Down b to stay at poke distance and force dair attempts. Side-B'd any whiffed grabs and 9 punched my way to victory.
That's why I also think 60-40's are extremely winnable, since the difference from the original playstyle isn't so far off.
Even if I'm at the "top" of the metagame, it's possible for me to lose 100 straight games of rock/paper/scissors/gun to you, where gun beats everything except scissors.
Yes it is possible. I don't see how this relates to what we're discussing though.
=/
Guessing game =/= Fighting Game
Oh, and the why pick the 49 guy when you can grab the 51 guy question?
Because we are humans. We have preferences and favorites.
Even in competition we may not take the best option in the game and instead take the best option for us as long as we feel the difficulty is reasonable.
I recall someone saying how they couldn't play MK because they hate the way he handles. They prefered big hits and traps so Ike, Snake and DK were their guys.
Gimpyfish is an incredible Melee Bowser player. Why? Bowser is a horrible character for competitive play. Many people think that if he played a higher tiered character he'd be phenomenal. but he likes Boozer.
As the players of these competitive games, as long as we are given the choice of picking between a healthy amount of viable tourney characters, the metagame we are building is fine.
We pick the 49 guy because we want to.
If we didn't every game would degrade into a 1 character tourney scene. Why not choose a character regarded as the best? As Ally (most recently) has shown, even a great character's worst MU/counter can be overcome with enough skill( and that's saying alot considering that specific match had Lain behind the wheel of his bad MU).
nomnomnomnomnom