Of the characters you listed, really only Lucina and Palutena were considered to be amazing from the get go. Everyone thought Wolf was a mid tier until Zackray showed up and won a 500 man tournament with him. I've listed reasonable ways to "balance" the character in the past that don't involve making people have to relearn how to play the character in any sense. Fairly inconsequential things like reducing damage output on some moves, or removing dsmash's ability to hit underneath the ledge. I've speculated Nintendo follows a "rule of three" with the spacies, Fox is fast,
Falco has jumps, and Wolf is strong. It just so happens that the first and third will almost always take priority over the middle option. Snake was listed anywhere from pretty good to pretty terrible in a lot of opinions, even after MVD won a tournament with solo Snake. I don't understand that character well enough beyond that he's super strong, and Nikita is still crazy, to even think about where to begin with thinking of reasonable balance changes. The original "problematic" characters in Ultimate were the Belmonts, K Rool, and Chrom, to go along with Lucina, Palutena, and Pikachu. Only half of them survived the initial top tier debate.
It's really difficult for me to take the 3ds days seriously. It was almost like an incomplete demo/Alpha of the Wii U version.
On your ending note, they can be a little more liberal with buffs if they want. Nerfs should
always be conservative unless the thing is wildly busted and very clearly a considerable problem. Please allow me to link a video:
Nintendo holds all the marbles. They distributed half of them amongst all the kids in the playground, and kept the rest to themselves. Some kids got more, some got less. The kids who got less are rightfully upset that they got less marbles. Taking away marbles from the kids who got more to even things out would then make them sad. What would the smart thing for Nintendo to do? Go full Communist/Thanos and forcefully yank half of them away from the kids who got more to give them to the other kids and tell them to deal with it? Or take from their personal (unlimited, fairly) stash and give the kids who got less a few more, so everyone is happy?
I know I quoted your post, but I'm really not trying to single you out on that last analogy. You were just the first to mention it in a long while. That's just always been my idea on balance patches. Loss aversion is real, and can legitimately alienate fans in the same way that an MK or Bayo dominating can. I kind of expect them to tiptoe through further patches and introduce more universal changes while continuing to fix some of the more obvious over-nerfs from previous games.
At least Sheik has a semblance of a vertical recovery and her up B isn't vulnerable to a light grazing. I kind of feel bad for anyone who plays Diddy in Ultimate. I'd hate for my character to be gutted as hard as him.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'bad'. Do you mean like the Belmonts, who can be very oppressive onstage but once offstage just die like Little Mac? And that has basically reduced opinion of them from top tier candidates to very low high tier/mid tier? I've said it a million times, but it would probably be fine if they just reduced the knockback on Wolf's up B. There are other characters who hit through the stage with their up B that fend off ledge traps and 2 frames, just none that are really kill moves. There have been numerous kills I've gotten just by recovering and thought "I probably didn't deserve that". His up B's diagonal distance is still pretty abysmal. at that angle, it's either drift inward and try to recover low, every time, or go for a riskier side B to the ledge.
And here I am getting sucked into the buff/nerf talk again. Is there another thread better suited for this?