not at all
Seeing low tiers players heavily limited because of their character is sad. Forget the whole "they use their entire moveset" argument because it ignores history. Melee fox used to be "Uthrow Uair the character" and now you see him use every facet of his gameplay and you can see even brawl MK go from tornado spammer to shuttle loop, Fair, Nair, Uair, Dair, Bair, Ftilt, Dtilt, Utilt, tornado, Drill rush, Shuttle loop canceling, Fsmash, and Dsmash MK (just listed his entire moveset).
You guys keep forgetting competition fuels the motivation to evolve and when these low tier characters use their entire moveset THIS early on, once competition evolves (like how it is now with ally becoming stronger and trela), you'll really see just how flipping bad and limiting these characters are. Raziek just left robin to the side for cloud because of this and you guys considered robin fine. I just totaled to dunnobro and he said raito, Brood, and yusan gets inconsistently good results because DHD is a inconsistent character and you guys considering him fine from a few results. this is why I suggest we make every character strong, not leave characters who need buffs to the side and keep shooting down the best characters until they get down to the lower levels.
I disagree, because the low tiers in this game are generally pretty limited in what they can do. They don't feel nearly as rewarding to play because of their flawed movesets.
Contrast that with mid/high tier characters like Marth who feel fun and rewarding to play. The argument that low tier characters are forced to utilize their entire moveset is totally off base considering many of them don't have entire movesets worth even using. (ie: Palutena).
I consider Palutena bottom tier along with the rest of the characters who don't have anything close to a full moveset. Palutena is also probably the most extreme example you could've picked: she's a character with very niche specials, tilts and smashes but then a few really good moves like dash attack, bair and fair. You might as well use Sonic as an example of top tier moveset versatility, and without all the nerfs he's gotten, it would be even worse.
I do agree that whereas top/high tier movesets are mainly split into really good, good and average moves, mid/low tiers can have the same kind of imbalance, just swapped into good, average and bad moves. Yet the reason they're not that good usually lies in their mobility stats and/or a lack of options in disadvantage rather than bad movesets, and you can't ignore the fact that top tiers have always become more versatile when they've been nerfed. Most of them are in a really good state now in this regard, but we should remember that it wasn't always this way.
On the other hand, whereas a few low tiers have been appropriately fixed (Marth/Lucina, Mewtwo, Samus to an extent), most have been "fixed" by creating imbalances in their movesets (Ike, DK, Bowser) by making one option really stand out from the rest relative to pre-buff versions of said characters.
Sure, there's the argument of buffing every move to the same insane level of the best moves in the game, but why would that make the newly buffed moves powerful? The best moves have only ever been powerful because the majority of moves in the game aren't like that. If they were, we would call all of them normal or average. It's a completely silly discussion. It's easier to create balance by nerfing a few moves than buffing 500, and the end result would still be the same, balance.
Power is ****ing relative. You either have balance or you have power, you can't have both because balance removes relativity. The only power that should be kept at the cost of balance in my opinion is every character having a couple or few moves/attributes that makes them stand out from the rest.
You might think now that the characters would feel more powerful if they did more damage for instance, and they would
compared to now, but when everyone did that you'd quickly get used to it and hope for the same over and over if you didn't learn yet.