I don't think Bayonetta can be fixed with simple nerfs to frame data or kbg/bkb values. Her problem is ingrained with her design, as are many other problems in sm4sh.
I think it's possible. You can't nerf the startup of Witch Twist without killing all of the feel/viability, but increasing the endlag would be reasonable, especially on a whiff. Kind of like how Ryu's tilts can cancel into specials upon connecting, Bayo's combo starter specials feel like they were intended to have a similar mechanic, but instead were just blessed with insanely low endlag.
Then there's After Burner Kick. This move coexists in the same game as Falcon Kick. Just think about that for a second.
There are definitely ways to increase Bayonetta's risk so that it matches her reward, but who knows what Nintendo will actually do. The changes she got last patch were good, and it was obvious they didn't want to overdo it.
I don't think this game is well-designed when you look at it from an objective pov. the game promotes defensive play and always picking the easy option without it being hard to identify in each scenario.
Nah it's fine! And like EL said, all fighting games have some serious defensive play. Most
anything does in many cases. Even Melee has a lot of defensiveness, there's just a lot of fluff that masks it.
as long as witch time gives bayo enough time to even get one dtilt or up b then it'll always be an incredibly amazing move despite how much they nerf it, unless they also choose to make bayonetta unable to kill off the top with her combos at like virtually any percent, and idk how they could do that without changing the idea behind her design
Witch Time SHOULD be good. It really sucks to be on the receiving end, because the game enters "single player mode," but as long as there's some risk associated (miss Counter, eat heavy punish+have worse Counter next time you use it) it should be very rewarding. And the risk was increased in this patch, so they're aware!
I think Bayo has good intentions with her design, but falls just slightly short for two reasons:
1. 0-death, or low% death combos happen way too frequently, probably worse than MK's ladder combo ever was. This is clearly something nobody, including the balance team, wants. The only 0-deaths Smash games should have are the ones that involve multiple reads/risks. They should not start from anywhere on stage (which is classically a relatively safe area, as opposed to the danger zone that is offstage) and drag someone to the top blast zone, with little to no punishment if they mess up their combo.
2. Aforementioned combos are started by quick, low-commitment moves,
contrary to what was advertised in the Direct. "Her moves have slow startup but combo well" is basically how she was advertised, but it's more "her moves are fast, almost unpunishable, and combo well" that we got in the end product.
That said, there's been way too much drama over her, it's pretty insane. It came out of nowhere. I meant to say this a couple days ago, but I was on mobile so I didn't :D the sudden talk about bans and the like is completely silly.
edit:
it is bad for viewership tbh
i dont like how you keep bringing up other fighting games when discussing smash, i know jack **** about other FGs lol, and i'm sure a lot of other ppl are on the same boat.
The way I see it... you mentioned
"the game promotes defensive play and always picking the easy option without it being hard to identify in each scenario."
But imagine if a game was somehow HYPER OFFENSIVE. What would that actually
mean? The way I imagine it, I just think that the optimal strategy would be to bullrush your opponent, spamming your fastest/safest attack at their face until you win. It would be like a more extreme version of prepatch Sheik Fair spam, and that would get incredibly boring very quickly.