>>42020071You're an idiot but I'll explain.
If something is fundamentally broken, it fucks up the game even if both players can use it, the game changes to being a better player than your opponent at the game and turns into "who can use this broken thing first", then the whole game revolves around this broken thing rather than the core gameplay. Going back to the other anon's examples.
>>>Both players have access to random item dropsThis is broken because instead of trying to fight your opponent to see who's better at the game, you're instead spending all your time thinking about the random item drops and how to get to them. You can be winning by a huge margin and get fucked over because your opponent got 2 good items in a row and there's nothing you can do about it no matter how well you play or how bad they're playing.
>>Both players have access to Akuma. How is that not balanced?This isn't balaned because now everyone is just going to use Akuma, anything that's worse than Akuma or loses to Akuma is now completely unusable because Akuma is in play, but if Akuma is gone then suddenly a ton more characters become usable. You're trying to use the fact that the games are different genres as a defense but the core concept of something being broken and bad for a game remains the same.
>Exactly, both players have access to the Pokemon in that tierNow the whole game is Mega Fug v Mega Fug because nothing else can contest it.
You very clearly only play Pokemon but for one second try to imagine that the D-Max ban was so the game doesn't turn into "three turns decide the whole match".
