And that is the case, if the DDD player is playing at the highest level of play.
No, it is not
physically impossible. It's just highly im
probably
80% still isn't an auto-win.
Yes, it is. It's an unwinnable match-up.
No match-up is an auto-win in such a way that once the match starts, you will have lost, no matter what. But at the highest level of play 80-20 is as good as an auto-win. It's unwinnable, the chances of you winning are so slim they might as well not exist.
That is if we're assuming roughly equal skill level and highest level of play.
The point is that even if the gap between their skill levels is sufficient for the Fox player to beat Pikachu
But the chances are still so small that it's not feasible. And no Fox player is really trying to work out ways to reduce the unwinnability of that match-up as we speak, contrary to what you seem to believe. They just don't play Fox or pick up a secondary for the Pikachu match-up.
rather than THE highest level, in which case a 51-49 matchup is an auto-win.
Highest possible
human level.
Fox would be playing better than Pikachu, but Pikachu would still be playing well.
If we're going to assume Pikachu's gonna screw up an inordinate amount of times while Fox won't (and not get grabbed, ever, since that's an automatic 80% or so of damage at maximum), we might as well assume D3 is gonna do everything wrong and DK everything right.
When it comes down to it, both matches are quite unwinnable. Both are auto-wins (or netiher is).
That's what this number means. Essentially, it means that if Fox is 80% of the total skill gap that can be referred to as the "highest levels", he can win.
That sentence didn't make much grammatical sense, but here's my guess at what's the proper reply:
So, if DK makes up for the 99% deficiency, he'll win, too!
No, it actually requires the DDD player to suck.
Likewise, it requires the Pikachu player to suck!
If considerably worse can still be considered at one of the highest levels, then yes. But the matchup is still winnable at the highest levels. Unlike DK vs. DDD.
No, you cannot be at one of the "highest levels" and lose against Fox as Pikachu in Brawl. The match-up is that bad!
This technique damages the metagame more than it's removal woud harm anything. The same can't be said for just removing a character.
Why? You're losing more characters than the characters you are keeping in the game. And why aren't we banning Pikachu's chaingrab? Because like it or not, it's one huge nail in Fox's coffin.
You seem to think that something random happening in someone's favour isn't unfair.
It is not unfair according to the rules of Competitive gaming. When we say "fair" in Competitive gaming, we mean that both sides stands an equal chance at the start of a game.
If you're gonna argue "unfairness" own to its core meaning, we could argue that every single stage that is even slightly random needs to be banned. Hey, that platform popped up and saved you on Yoshi's Island, but it never pops up to save me! Unfair!
And it's made even more unfair by the fact that you can't know who it will benefit more until the match is over. And it will benefit someone more. And that's not fair.
Statistically speaking, both sides stand a 50/50 chance. That is fair.
That kind of thing happens rarely, and the player should be prepared for it. Items are gauranteed to give someone an advantage every single game.
This is a lie.
lolwut? Games aren't meant to be fair?
Stop
strawmanning yourself. This is what you said:
"Games are meant to be as fair
as possible."
No, they are
not. Not Competitive fight games or other games where the creators themselves do not step in and change the game for us. No Competitive community ever bans things to make them as fair as possible.
You lost me with that one. Here's my example: Brawl and Melee ban items to make it fair, just like the Olympics bans performance-enhancing drugs to make it fair.
No, we do not ban items to make it more "fair". Your definition of "fair" is not the correct one (in this context).
A character in a game is substantially different from a technique, in that characters USE techniques.
No, the techniques are a part of a character. We're in essence banning a part of that character, quasi-banning them. If they are "too good" to be allowed to stay alive in the metagame, then they have to go. We don't remove parts of them to rebalance the game.
In a sense, the players of a sport are like characters, and we ban certain things that make those characters broken, like performance-enhancing drugs.
No, the players are players. In sports, you are given options (characters), shoes, clothes, equipment, training regimens, supplements, vitamins, what have you. Certain options are better than others. Certain shoes are better than other shoes, certain types of clothes are better than other types of clothes, certain training regimens are better than other training regimens. Thus, certain options (characters) render other options (characters) unviable.
Why are performance-enhancing drugs banned? Because they
break the game. It becomes
use them or lose, no matter what else you try. They
over-centralize the game around themselves. Not to mention how many of them have detrimental health effects.
Thank you for freeing me of that delusion. The point is, that they can, and there is potential, unlike DK vs. DDD.
No, they cannot. If we're going to assume D3 is never going to make enough mistakes to lose, we can assume the same goes for Pikachu. Because either that or your definition of "one of the highest level" is very loose and your lowest "highest level" is probably way below what I'd call even intermediate.