Man, bayonetta is gonna be so nerfed isnt she
I dont think she is worse than pre-patch shiek, and not even close to pre-patch diddy, however zero does have a point in the easy to pick up and play, but nah, pre-patch shiek was way more toxic aimply by being a character with no losing and dabatebly no even matchups.
She isn't exactly pre-patch Diddy, but she's offering similar play patterns - low risk + insane reward.
Toxic is a choice word, everyone has their own definition, but yours is explicitly not what ZeRo is insinuating.
Honestly, it's hard to contemplate how you're meant to nerf this character.
Have witch time scale with the power of the attack it is triggered by? Cut it's duration by at least half? Make her smash attacks so absurdly weak they're useless except for high-ish percent witch time KOs?
(which would just make those moves useless and would make it so people would just try to combo you for a stock... I guess that's better overall than the current situation).
Double the start up of up-b and possibly side-b?
You're suddenly killing the "feel" for her doing this.
It's really hard to see a Bayo in this game not being worthless and still being "Bayo", because her design is frankly one of the most stupid (the comparisons with Ice Climbers is what we mean by 'toxic'; and is why I've maintained all this time that "Thank God ICs aren't in this game, I don't care what you say, they would've found a way to be degenerative to game play").
To put awkward analogies into place.
The Roman Empire had no losing match ups.
There was no debate either, nothing was remotely close to even. Perhaps the Han Chinese Dynasty but they were on the other side of the world and weren't too interested in traveling very far for wars on a regular basis (they likely weren't even that aware of each others existence).
Rome pushed the world forward and defined Western
everything for millennia. While obviously not perfect, one could hardly say it was toxic.
They subjugated and amalgamated culture, science, language and other things. And at their zenith ("Pax Romana") as the dominant force of the known world, existed with relative harmony for over a hundred years.
However, a comparative "no losing match ups, nothing even remotely close to even" was the the Mongol horde -
which pillaged, *****, and committed mass genocide (in particular of the Ukrainian and Persian-influenced regions); pushed the world backwards in all arts and sciences and the cycle of bloody conflict into power vacuums has continued throughout the West Indus and Middle East still to this day (although Western Europe's crusades before then and now were not helping either).
On the plus side, some 800 years later, we can thank our friend Genghis Khan for holding back global warming and for the higher amount of oxygen we get to breathe now.
Obviously for those who have survived this, they can draw the benefits, but for all those lost, I'm sure they would've all preferred being conquered by Rome.
Moral of this analogy?
Being the best doesn't instantly mean being the worst for everyone else or that it's "toxic".
