Then play her like Melee, additional options aren't stopping you from doing that.
This isn't about how one person plays the character, this is about the playstyle that the character's design encourages.
There's no argument here, you just keep speaking in absolutes with no hard data, which is because there cannot be hard data when this is purely opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean by hard data in this context. I start from the assertion that stance changes are designed to encourage the use of both stances as actively as possible. This is based on observations about other characters that change their mode over the course of a match. In ComboFiend's balance video for Gen in USFIV, he mentions that it's a problem that players favor mantis over crane, and lo, crane stance received several buffs. Switching is fast for Gen, and each stance has clear advantages over the other in different situations. Valkenhayn's wolf mode in BlazBlue is unquestionably better than human, but is limited in how long it can be used. Switching is fast, cancels attacks on hit, and occurs automatically when Valkenhayn is hit. I can go on and on. The fact that the player is never actively punished for switching, and is intended to have good reason to switch, and use both modes, is a common thread throughout these characters. You asked why such protocols are necessary when implementing a stance change. My answer boils down to, "if you aren't going to actively encourage the use of both modes through clear boundaries of utility, and low-cost switching, why bother having the stance change at all?" Your response incorrectly labels my challenge as opinion, while retreating to the fallacy that your opinion is valid, even if it's unjustified.
A stance change fits Samus' character, and helps her in situations she struggled in without having to buff her or change her core gameplan. This isn't true for the rest of the cast.
It does change her core gameplan. That's exactly what I've been saying the entire time. It forces the player who's playing to win to consider which stance is more valuable at any time, and build their gameplan around having access to that stance. That is a change in core gameplan. This would be true for any character. So if getting more moves is your justification for making such a core change to a character's gameplan, then it is justification for doing so to any character. If you disagree with this conclusion, then your assertion that "having another move set... is reason enough," is untenable with that disagreement.
This is a trap question, of course I wouldn't think she was less fun. And someone who has never seen the sun cannot miss it's warmth.
Well, that's why I asked the question, because it demonstrates why "because it's fun" is an arbitrary justification. It could be applied to anything, even leaving the character totally untouched. If you don't like trap questions, then don't use arbitrary justifications.
You say she doesn't need it, I say she does. Ice helps in a lot of match-ups, and given the amount of new match-ups in this game, it's an excellent tool to prevent having to switch to a secondary character.
But the things Samus needed could have been handled without adding in a mechanic that totally changes the character. I'm serious. Buff Plasma usmash, put in 64 bair. That's all she needed. You're wrong when you say she
needed a stance switch in order to deal with a few problem situations, because all that was
needed were a couple moves.
Even if it was just for novelty Samus finally got a weapon switch that many appreciate solely because it's a big part of her character in all her games.
Only noticed this just now, but apparently this needs to be cleared up
again. Two of her games. Beam Switching is an important mechanic in two Metroid games. All other games stack beams or only allow Samus to carry one beam at a time.
