Possibly. But I think if changes were minor enough and agreeable enough then it wouldn't really matter. Pretty much like, not melee 'rebalanced' but just 'melee v1.03'. As if the designers created just one more version before finally deciding on it all.
I mean, yeah, if melee were really changed around, I probably wouldn't like it at all. I'm actually already against the idea. It would have to be a very very conservative change for me to like it. Like, very tiny intermittent buffs to the lower tier cast, and just those nerfs (and one for jiggs) I mentioned to the high tier cast. I would leave the middle tiers largely untouched: Samus, Ganon, Mario, Luigi, Doc, they're all fine how they are. DK could probably have a slightly faster dtilt, he needs that for his close-up game, and maybe a slightly higher vertical gain on his up+b, but I wonder if that would be even too much, he's a bit of a powerhouse on his own. You start thinking "oh, maybe this character could use more of this?" and that's where you start making mistakes because very quickly the changes compound on themselves and suddenly both characters' playstyles are changed, which means the metagame (the core fundamentals that represent Melee for what and how it is as to distinguish it from the rest of the smash games, not who's higher up on the tier list) is affected, and the game can then become something else. When looking at your final product you must always first ask 'what can be removed to make this better?' and if you can't find anything, then you it's already perfect, you don't need to add anything else. But if you find that something sticks out more than the others (like fox's upsmash), then you have to first remove that, and only then can you compare 'ok, fox now has this move, this move, and that move, and they are of this amount of relative power to each other. now link, on the other hand, has all these moves, and yet his power balance there is relatively lower than what fox has: therefore, I think link really has to have this improvement to one of his moves to be considered on-par with fox's relative powers.' Looking beyond any nuances to this process it can still be said that this is a thorough process that the steps cannot be really skipped in any way or else you will get confused and your final product will not be how you thought it would turn out. It's like baking: ever made a recipe one way, and then the next time made two small changes instead of one, and the result is something entirely different than what you had the first time? It's just not apparent what happened unless you go back and walk through the steps one by one, here the hindsight really comes through. (Perhaps the most prime example of this today is the continual rebalancing in games, where one seemingly-individual change now indirectly affects something else that wasn't meant to be changed, and this affects that which affects this, and the result leaves something more to be had because the game changes quite literally fundamentally. Edit: I specifically mean rebalancing here, not just adding new ideas. Like, I know League of Popularness redid its whole fog of war area, it constantly adds new characters, and it just added even more changes to its fundamental structure - these changes are inherent to a game that will never stay the same, however the rebalancing process that takes place there would be so much more refined when applied to Melee, which doesn't change inherently yet new solutions are found enough over time. They are different beasts.)
Any changes more broad than these tinier changes and I don't think people would like the game, the people playing melee for melee are already in love with it for what it is. This would have to be an agreed-upon thing, like I said.
