It’s not artificial to be perfectly balanced. It’s artificial to add unpredictable or random occurring events that cause a swing to go one way or another. It’s artificial to design a character to do better against an other character.
These are things game designer DO because perfect balance is often boring. There are a lot of game design books that discuss perfect balance in games.
Take a look at the game Soccer (football). The game itself is perfectly balanced. If both teams are perfect and neither team makes a mistake then the game will end always with a 0-0. You can’t factor in luck in this hypothetical situations because we are trying to discuss balance and skill theory.
You start to get winners and losers when you have equally matched teams, in the sense of each team has the same exact rules to how their players should behave, but the individual players are able to predict the actions of the other players and force a mistake.
You shouldn’t lose a match because of the rules of the game say your character can’t beat another character because it was designed that way. It should be that each character has perfectly equal opportunity to win as long as they are playing well and not making mistakes.
Another example of a perfectly balanced game is a Staring Contest. 2 rules: Don’t look away, don’t blink. The first person to break the rules loses. Simple. The skill in this game comes from the individuals and not from the core mechanics.
… while within the same thread you claim that melee is on a massive disadvantage. Quite contradictory if you ask me. ( I realize you would want just one of those melees but you have never ever done enough science -if any- to assume that 3 ranged + 1 melee are noticeably superior to something like 2 ranged + 2 melee … this is just another untenable assertion of yours! )