Project M Social Thread

[Grim Tuesday]

I wasn't talking about Balance I was talking about Kirby

PMBR members never miss a beat to boast or get defensive over something.

Its just like old timezzzz :D

 

[androgynus]

By the way, those I met at the last event I went to and who come come test with me once every two-three weeks or so love Kirby a lot. believe me, we've managed to make Kirby feel amazing and yet play similarily. Of course, he's not done, but believe me, he's in good hands.

indeed. He is painful to play against ><. Good thing there is bowser!

 

[mariodk]

Oh my bad I meant that can you import a Mewtwo or Roy model? Forget about the taunt thing

these are made already and afew models of Mewtwo too and even brawl styled texture

Well, if we incorporated it, it would be purely aesthetic. F-smash would look electric or something, maybe pills if that was feasible, white cape. I'm more of a supporter of holding the taunt button during the character entry though, not mid match.

We'll see about it, but yeah, we already have a solid hybrid, so the moves wouldn't actually change according to me.

having piles+fireballs on N-B is impossible(yet)
but it is possible to have white cape at same time as yellow
the white cape over fludd since P:M dont use fludd
yellow cape over the yellow cape
or if dr. mario just as alt. texture it also possible to have oneslot Side-B cape texture just put the side-B cape over fludd instead of over the real article for Cape so all the mario´s but doc can use yellow texture and doc can use white texture
like here:

(just a image of my SMBZ mario moveset´s Side-B cape mode ) also i know it possible to change outfit like that since on this moveset i made fire transfrom
so we can get dr. mario+normal mario in same slot still and since P:M Mario is a hybrid of these two and the only moveset change where will be in dr mario mode will be F-smash GFX/hiteffect(still same dmg/knockback/hitstun as on normal mario mode),if it is possible: Piles(at same time we have fireballs again still have knockback/dmg/hitstun) so all what you basely change in Dr. mario mode is GFX/hiteffect/model nothing about the moveset/gameplay

i hope project: M can use my ideas for get Dr. mario in at same time as having normal mario

 

[Strong Badam]

bowser is too good

 

[jalued]

A bit late, but anyhow

I would prefere if there was an extra download available that included at least the melee soundtracks over the melee stages. I have never included songs into my brawl game (mainly because i have no reason to play it yet), so it would be greatly appreciated if the nostalgia of the melee soundtrack was included.

Melee vertices are easier to add personally, so i don't mind either way with them.

Btw, is melee BF going to be included? Watching this video made me realize how much I miss it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQA_ehtZ8ZQ&feature=g-u-u&context=G22865a9FUAAAAAAAAAA

 

[KingClubber]

Good to hear kirby's getting some work done, also "Spams_Arrows" I grew so tired of looking at the gif in your sig so i decided to block it.

 

[I R MarF]

We know how to balance a game.

Then why are you making everyone top tier instead of just viable like you guys said you'd be doing a year ago?

Then again, you may not be the one to necessarily point fingers at. Unless of course you were part of the design of Pit, Zelda, or ROB. Aka, the masters of all trades... (jack of none???)

 

[kaizo13]

Specks keeps the hype going http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLCyjl4JdiE&feature=g-u-u&context=G22865a9FUAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Strong Badam]

Then why are you making everyone top tier instead of just viable like you guys said you'd be doing a year ago?

Then again, you may not be the one to necessarily point fingers at. Unless of course you were part of the design of Pit, Zelda, or ROB. Aka, the masters of all trades... (jack of none???)

Source?

Making everyone barely viable is also a really bad idea and isn't really balance.

 

[9Kplus1]

Then why are you making everyone top tier instead of just viable like you guys said you'd be doing a year ago.

It's kind of difficult to balance characters that don't even have to tools necessary to compete at higher levels of play.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Actually it is impossible to give him OU.

This is bull**** btw.

I mean I haven't extensively worked with Kirby's copy abilities (hard to differentiate the actions and subactions, so I leave it to other people) but it should be something fairly easy to do.

 

[Strong Badam]

Last I heard it was a possibility. But like
Let's do that later

 

[Starscream]

Specks keeps the hype going http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLCyjl4JdiE&feature=g-u-u&context=G22865a9FUAAAAAAAAAA

That was hot.

Like, better than the actual trailer.

 

[I R MarF]

Source?

It'd take to long to find the specific information, but I just remember you guys preaching "viable, but not top" a lot a long time ago. I also believe that Demo 1 heavily reflected that ideal if that suffices as evidence. Remember all the intense criticism of Sonic and Snake and how the P:M team defended their changes? (two characters I now praise for their design because the team had actually given them a strength/weakness system)

I think a better question is why you guys started shooting for top tier.

Making everyone barely viable is also a really bad idea and isn't really balance.

I think high tier and high mid is the section you want to shoot for. So characters like Marth, Peach, C. Falcon, and IC's. If you really consider these characters, particularly the IC's or C. Falcon, they have pretty substantial weaknesses and can still compete with the top 4 despite some really bad MUs.

I think a huge problem is the P:M team thinks that if a character can't compete with Fox and Falco, then they haven't met the P:M stamp of approval of viability. The problem with this mentality is that the P:M team is aiming for a 100% viable cast. So we are moving up from Melee's tiny world of like 11-12 viable characters to a whopping 41. Instead of Fox and Falco comprising roughly 16% of the usable characters, they now comprise about 5%.

Furthermore, this idea of balancing along Fox and Falco should have failed by simply considering C. Falcon. Here we have a viable and competitive character whose worst MUs are Fox and Falco. Two characters that comprise 16% of the viable characters and arguable 35-40% of all Melee players in general. Why do people play C. Falcon if competing with Fox and Falco is the be all end all to viability in melee? Is it because his MUs in respect to the rest of the cast are excellent? Is it because his character is insanely popular? You could consider many different things but the fact remains that you can have bad MUs with Fox and Falco and still be a very viable and deep character.

In conclusion, Fox and Falco are horribly broken balance wise and in no way should resemble any development team's idea of achieving balance. Please leave them on their tiny top tier island (5% guys! they are only 5% of the cast!). If every character is designed almost inherently to have excellent options against these characters, you'll find that you are going to have to give these characters so many new options and then the top tier position will be horribly inflated and the original high tiers will be left in the dust. If the Melee audience is such a big target, then why are you making all the Melee characters so boring and ill equipped? Why do all the new characters seem weaknessless and seem to have a really low level accessibility?

 

[Archangel]

Then why are you making everyone top tier instead of just viable like you guys said you'd be doing a year ago?

Then again, you may not be the one to necessarily point fingers at. Unless of course you were part of the design of Pit, Zelda, or ROB. Aka, the masters of all trades... (jack of none???)

Don't say anything bad about pit if you want to keep your balls.

Specks keeps the hype going http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLCyjl4JdiE&feature=g-u-u&context=G22865a9FUAAAAAAAAAA

Ok....so after seeing this...pit confirmed?

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

Marf, shut up already. This has been brought up over and over and over again and it ends the same way everytime.

Let it go already. Make your own damn mod with everyone "viable" in your vision if you want it that way so bad. Sheesh. - -

Their method is working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Archangel]

It's really not broken, anything that appears broken is changed immediately. Other things that appear broken is actually a difference in player skill or mental ability.

 

[I R MarF]

Marf, shut up already. This has been brought up over and over and over again and it ends the same way everytime.

Let it go already. Make your own damn mod with everyone "viable" in your vision if you want it that way so bad. Sheesh. - -

Their method is working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Its funny because it is broke.

Its also funny because Jiang, a P:M dev, said a while back that he agrees with me and dislikes the direction the P:M developers have taken with the characters.

 

[Archangel]

Its funny because it is broke.

Its also funny because Jiang, a P:M dev, said a while back that he agrees with me and dislikes the direction the P:M developers have taken with the characters.

Jiang offered a multidimensional statement based on the arguement that was going on back then(as was said, it has happened a few time in your presents and absence). He liked some aspect and disagreed with other directions for some characters not all. He also said later that it was all just speculation and theory and where the game will actually go nobody knows because it's not released.


If you are so sure about it. Why don't you start pointing out everything that is broken.

 

[jalued]

Its funny because it is broke.

Its also funny because Jiang, a P:M dev, said a while back that he agrees with me and dislikes the direction the P:M developers have taken with the characters.

I think you are bending his words, I think he said "a few characters" rather than what you are suggesting.

If you are so unhappy with it all, either apply to be a playtester, or don't play the game

Fox and falco are yes, very good characters. But they are both very susceptible to being punished, and as the DDD v fox videos suggest, if the fox makes a single mistake he will pay for it. Players will ALWAYS make mistakes whether it be technical or a judgement, so don't use theory craft to justify balance.

 

[I R MarF]

Here is the post I am referring to:

although i find it odd that one can write so much about a game they havent even played yet, i'd say irmarf's general statement is pretty correct. i don't really like broad white washing of moveset buffs, i like seeing characters fit into niches.

thank you for the compliments on snake's design in demo1, btw. we wanted him to be a tactical and a difficult to use character. he's gotten some straight buffs from demo1 because many of us feel like he needed a good bread and butter game so that snake didn't have to camp as much. he still gets completely wrecked if someone gets in on him though, trust me.

which brings me to another topic: what will a character look at their lamest? with lots of money on the line, what kind of dreary, repetitive playstyle will be abuseable? it was always something kept in mind when i designed a character. i always felt like tournament games are popular because of the audience. without an interested audience, competitive games won't have anyone to watch it and garner the hype. if the audience is bored with seeing a certain character play, then your game will lose viewers. so i always took measures to try to make a character that the audience would love to watch. i almost never considered where this character would fit on the tierlist. (the characters i had some hand in the designing of are snake, bowser, zss, charizard, a little bit of squirtle and ness, lucario and ike)

unfortunately not everyone in the BR agrees with designing a playstyle before worrying about tier stats so you're going to see a lot of just straight buffs to the demo2 characters and overall a lot of just good moves spread among the cast. i've recently bowed out of project M development because of disagreements with how design is dealt with (but mostly because of school/career related reasonings) but hopefully whatever happens to the characters along the way, they'll be applying whatever feedback from demo2 onto characters in demos/patches in the future.

And my major complaint is that I disagree with the lack of balance with some of the new characters such as Pit, Zelda, etc. I love a lot of the stuff the P:M has done but I think some of their new characters just don't seem to fit in right and are too good and too accessible for how good they are.

 

[MaxThunder]

^^So... how about you take this up again after demo 2 is released?.. cause right now it won't really do much good...

 

[I R MarF]

I really just want an answer or at the very least, an understanding and realization of my observation. That observation being that there are characters being developed that don't have major weaknesses integrated into their playstyle and aren't specialists. So in other words, there are characters which seem to be generally good at a lot of facets of the game instead of being more specialized. You can really see the specialization of characters like Demo 1 Snake and Sonic, but Demo 2 Pit and Zelda can ignore what little weaknesses they have and be effective with very freeform styles of play.

 

[jalued]

^^So... how about you take this up again after demo 2 is released?.. cause right now it won't really do much good...

I couldnt actually think of a reply to IRMarf, but this'll do ^

I do agree that i feel some characters do not have any prominent weaknesses (zelda comes to mind), but there is no metagame for her at this moment in time. Who knows, maybe she will have some very hard matchups that limit her capability. I mean, in a game with so many characters and closer balance, I'm sure that many gamers will main at least 2 characters so that they can better deal with those trickier matchups.

I don't think we need to worry about having long winded grandfinals in a game with this much choice.

Credit to the design of charizard, ike, ZSS etc. They look like very entertaining characters to watch and play

 

[Archangel]

And my major complaint is that I disagree with the lack of balance with some of the new characters such as Pit, Zelda, etc. I love a lot of the stuff the P:M has done but I think some of their new characters just don't seem to fit in right and are too good and too accessible for how good they are.

Can you prove that Zelda and Pit are unbalanced?

 

[I R MarF]

@Archangel what are their weaknesses? and if they exist, do they have to be considered in their playstyles as much as say Marth has to consider is lack of high percent KO ability and C. falcon's lack of good OoS/defensive options? Are their strengths specialized?

I ask my self these questions in regards to Pit and Zelda and find myself realizing that they don't really have any major playstyle barriers and arent particularly specialized like Melee high tiers and lower or characters like Demo 1 Sonic and Snake.

I couldnt actually think of a reply to IRMarf, but this'll do ^

I do agree that i feel some characters do not have any prominent weaknesses (zelda comes to mind), but there is no metagame for her at this moment in time. Who knows, maybe she will have some very hard matchups that limit her capability. I mean, in a game with this many characters and closer balance, I'm sure that many gamers will main at least 2 characters so that they can better deal with those trickier matchups.

I don't think we need to worry about having long winded grandfinals in a game with this much choice.

Credit to the design of charizard, ike etc. They look like very entertaining characters to watch and play

Lol does that mean I made a good point if you couldn't think of a good response other than "Oh shut it and save it for later!"?

But if you think about it, a character would have more impressive design if they felt alien and actually took devotion to take to their full potential. For instance, C. Falcon and Jiggs have had huge tier jumps and all it took was someone who had a deeper understanding of the character to show everyone their potential.

If Zelda is like Sheik and is great from day 1, that means that the character actually has little to overcome from the player perspective and is now asking the opposing player to devote time to learning the MU in order to expose their weaknesses, and like Sheik, there probably won't be many to be found if thats the case.

(tl;dr) people should have to learn their character which is a combination of overcoming weaknesses and applying specific strengths to formulate the best playstyle

 

[Strong Badam]

Most characters are designed and tested with the assumption that as time goes on, matchup knowledge will be gained and Melee top tier characters will do better against PMBR designed characters than before. This is because they are better, and as metagame advances so do their matchups. We've all been playing against Melee top tier for 10 years; we know how to exploit their very limited weaknesses really well regardless of with which character. Exploiting a brand new character will not come as easily. I was playing against Dart's Marth in Project M one day and he stated "This is strange, as I'm literally inventing the metagame against this character."
If we design a character to be "Good", then they'll get worse, and become "Mediocre" which is not the goal of our balancing. We also hope to use the data from demo v2.0 play and tournaments to make any needed changes to characters to make sure balance isn't out of whack.

 

[jalued]

Can you prove that Zelda and Pit are unbalanced?

I don't think "balance" is the right word here:

It is more that they will be easier to use to a higher level of play, like sheik or puff. This doesn't ensure that they will be the best characters (or even top 10, sheik hasn't won a major tournament in years) but it does still diminish the technical skill required to use other characters.

However, it is important to understand that character usage comes in waves and counter strategies/characters are quickly found to deal with the usage saturation of a character.

So if zelda is easy to use, but its possible that she will struggle against a few characters (pikachu seems like a possibility, i hope he's in demo 2)then she will only ever rise to sheik status in the metagame, a good but generally forgotten character.

If we design a character to be "Good", then they'll get worse, and become "Mediocre" which is not the goal of our balancing. We also hope to use the data from demo v2.0 play and tournaments to make any needed changes to characters to make sure balance isn't out of whack.

What strategies do the backroom have balancing from feedback? Will it be minor changes that do not affect the gameplay of the character and their developing metagame, or is it possible that something significant will be altered?

 

[kaizo13]

people should have to learn their character which is a combination of overcoming weaknesses and applying specific strengths to formulate the best playstyle

that's something I can agree with, but as far as i'm concerned...the pmbr has shown to have a very good perception of balance.

although in the back of my head, i do feel some of the new-comers with no metagame are easily going toe to toe with vets, but hey...i'll wait for the demo

 

[I R MarF]

Most characters are designed and tested with the assumption that as time goes on, matchup knowledge will be gained and Melee top tier characters will do better against PMBR designed characters than before. This is because they are better, and as metagame advances so do their matchups. We've all been playing against Melee top tier for 10 years; we know how to exploit their very limited weaknesses really well regardless of with which character. Exploiting a brand new character will not come as easily. I was playing against Dart's Marth in Project M one day and he stated "This is strange, as I'm literally inventing the metagame against this character."
If we design a character to be "Good", then they'll get worse, and become "Mediocre" which is not the goal of our balancing. We also hope to use the data from demo v2.0 play and tournaments to make any needed changes to characters to make sure balance isn't out of whack.

The main thing I dislike about this is that its suggesting that MU knowledge outweighs character experience. Its suggesting that a 3 year Fox main will have difficulty playing against a one month Lucario main simply due to lack of MU knowledge. Ideally you would want the meta game to take this cycle:

1. Melee vets dominate due to more knowledge of the character which they are playing
2. new char mains develop playstyles and experience
3. new char mains surprise Melee vets with lack of MU knowledge, P:M chars briefly dominate
3. Equilibrium when there is even distribution of skill and MU knowledge

TBH, I think Demo 1 would have taken that path if people gave Sonic and Snake a chance but they were difficult to play from the get go so people shunned them and blamed it on their lack of tools to compete with Melee chars.

It seems that the P:M characters are getting substantial enough buffs to skip step 1 and 2 of the process so that these characters have short low level learning curves and can compete with Melee vets and multi-year mains.

 

[Strong Badam]

Skill isn't exactly linear, though, and there are players that have played since 2004 with the same character that can get wrecked by talented 3 month old players. Really, the game is more about player skill than character choice; we've ensured this in our balancing. If it ends up that Lucario is broken a year from now from people advancing his metagame, you can go "I told you so." Until then, your argument isn't very convincing.

Its suggesting that a 3 year Fox main will have difficulty playing against a one month Lucario main simply due to lack of MU knowledge.

If the Lucario is good, yes. That's how it's always been even in melee. Whenever an unpopular character comes along, everyone but the very top players seems to have trouble adjusting to it.

 

[jalued]

The main thing I dislike about this is that its suggesting that MU knowledge outweighs character experience. Its suggesting that a 3 year Fox main will have difficulty playing against a one month Lucario main simply due to lack of MU knowledge. Ideally you would want the meta game to take this cycle:

1. Melee vets dominate due to more knowledge of the character which they are playing
2. new char mains develop playstyles and experience
3. new char mains surprise Melee vets with lack of MU knowledge, P:M chars briefly dominate
3. Equilibrium when there is even distribution of skill and MU knowledge

TBH, I think Demo 1 would have taken that path if people gave Sonic and Snake a chance but they were difficult to play from the get go so people shunned them and blamed it on their lack of tools to compete with Melee chars.

It seems that the P:M characters are getting substantial enough buffs to skip step 1 and 2 of the process so that these characters have short low level learning curves and can compete with Melee vets and multi-year mains.

Not all of them, only a few characters have this "problem". I hardly think charizard or ike fit into your argument and lucario is a poor example because he is very difficult to use well.

There were only a few new characters in demo1, and the landing detection was the biggest turnoff for innovation (not being able to aerial close to the ground is irritating). Demo 2 is set to have ALOT more variety, so I think you should give it time and
allow the character to progress in whatever direction players chose to take them.

Btw, spelt aerial correctly!!! :D :D

 

[Archangel]

1. Melee vets dominate due to more knowledge of the character which they are playing
2. new char mains develop playstyles and experience
3. new char mains surprise Melee vets with lack of MU knowledge, P:M chars briefly dominate
3. Equilibrium when there is even distribution of skill and MU knowledge

TBH, I think Demo 1 would have taken that path if people gave Sonic and Snake a chance but they were difficult to play from the get go so people shunned them and blamed it on their lack of tools to compete with Melee chars.

It seems that the P:M characters are getting substantial enough buffs to skip step 1 and 2 of the process so that these characters have short low level learning curves and can compete with Melee vets and multi-year mains.

Your arguments make sense but you are forgetting something. Melee is an old game. Alot of 3 year fox mains will figure out the new MU's in a months time.

Something I can't understand is you want Melee vets to dominate but you also want Zelda to be nerfed....

Another thing you are forgetting is the fact that new characters are already overall better than Melee's cast(not including buffed returning characters). Even before meleefication if you look at all that the characters are capable of doing.

Pit - Has swords, arrows, reflecting shield, decent speed, WINGS.

How many characters could fly in melee? none technically. This has to be taken into account and it has by the PMBR. Pit has so many tools by default that they would have to take away one in order to give him a real solid weakness. As for strengths his only real strength that sticks out is his flight. aside from that he's not the best at any other aspect of smash.

Fact of the matter is this is melee 2.0 and with that comes new dimensions that everyone will have to adjust too over time. To make Zelda terrible again or to Nerf Pit to the level of Melee's Donkey Kong would serve no purpose. He has the tools to be good and it he ends up as a good character it makes sense. As for him being easy button I don't think he's half as easy as Sheik. The people who play him have been playing him for months. Some for years. Same goes for Zelda.

As for Snake and Sonic. I think the difficulty for them was a combination of the mechanics being way to off and other aspects like Snake's weight made things seem worse then they were. I actually liked Sonic in demo vs 1. He has alot of weaknesses but his strength(speed) is a huge stand out.

as for new characters...think back to the older fighting games. Tekken and Soul Caliber or Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. All of which underwent the same kind of transformations and add-ons as Melee 2.0 and in the end turned out fine. Some new characters looked great at first but the Veterans over took them in the long run. Or some new characters took a place at the top beside them or in some rare cases above them. Honestly If at least 1 or 2 New comers aren't in the top tier after a year or 2 then wouldn't that make this project a failure?

 

[kaizo13]

I feel it's safer for newcomers to be subjected to future buffs rather than nerfs. Watching characters grow and overcome challenges is part of what made Melee.

 

[jalued]

I feel it's safer for newcomers to be subjected to future buffs than to nerfs. Watching characters grow and overcome challenges is part of what made Melee.

True, but being able to "give" character buffs does not let them grow. It just makes players become dependant on these gameplay buffs rather than actually learning how to play the character well.

Axe is a perfect example of how to take an average character and win. Imagine how good pikachu will be PM with his substantial buffs

Neither buffing or nerfing characters is good for metagame, but as long as the changes are subtle enough it should integrate without too many players protesting. Having said that, I am personally against any buffs/nerfs with the demo2 character. I think they should just be left alone, like melee was and let the metagame develop as it will. Having 20 characters tournament viable is still alot better than melee's balance, even if it is not perfect

 

[Archangel]

I feel it's safer for newcomers to be subjected to future buffs rather than nerfs. Watching characters grow and overcome challenges is part of what made Melee.

yes but that growth was brought in with overall growth and discovering of AT's as well. before Wave dashing was discovered the game's path was much different. With SH projectle use and shffling's discovery and development it caused more changed. As many changes as there have been over 10 years some characters have made no significant moves and they are trapped below C tier. Making them permanently nonviable. Why else do you think characters like Zelda are being buffed in the first place? We already watched her grow for 11 years. Why waste more time...to be realistic how many more good years do you think melee has left? The game and the players? Do you see it going much farther...lets say 2018? I don't.

 

[Strong Badam]

Pikachu isn't much better than in Melee, much to my dismay. Specks didn't like his dthrow combos and made it **** again.

 

[Archangel]

True, but being able to "give" character buffs does not let them grow. It just makes players become dependant on these gameplay buffs rather than actually learning how to play the character well.

Axe is a perfect example of how to take an average character and win. Imagine how good pikachu will be PM with his substantial buffs

Neither buffing or nerfing characters is good for metagame, but as long as the changes are subtle enough it should integrate without too many players protesting. Having said that, I am personally against any buffs/nerfs with the demo2 character. I think they should just be left alone, like melee was and let the metagame develop as it will. Having 20 characters tournament viable is still alot better than melee's balance, even if it is not perfect

I don't think Pikachu was ever bad. He was a B lvl character hiding out with the D's and E's. Nobody took the time to master him because he was boring and seemed to easily killed by opponents or himself. Then there is the fact that he takes more effort to do the same things Fox does by pressing down-B. However he can gimp just as well. He is pretty good if someone took the time to play a more complex or less easy character. Also legal stages and rule-sets have changed more toward the liking of characters like Pikachu, Luigi, Samus for example. It's part of why I think more of them are emerging and placing near the top.

The only way I think someone should be nerfed is if they emerge at Metaknight status. If Zelda and Pit place 1st and 2nd or even top 3 at every event for a year then something should be done. I don't see that happening. For starters they both have to deal with being lightweights forever. counter picking small ceiling stages will be a ***** for them. Not to mention Mario beats the **** out of both of them from time to time

 

[JCaesar]

Why don't you guys play the game first before jumping to conclusions about balance?

 

[cmart]

Then why are you making everyone top tier instead of just viable like you guys said you'd be doing a year ago?

Then again, you may not be the one to necessarily point fingers at. Unless of course you were part of the design of Pit, Zelda, or ROB. Aka, the masters of all trades... (jack of none???)

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here about things I know you have no real access to. So it's hard not to take your balance ranting with a grain of salt. It also disturbs me that a) you think your three example characters are indicative of everyone's design for some reason and b) the pmbr apparently isn't allowed to develop characters with different design guidelines. In a 41 character game, it seems you believe that every character should strictly follow Captain Falcon's design. We should never look to other viable melee characters, like Peach, or Samus or Jiggz - characters that when viewed in a vacuum without real access appear to lack definable weaknesses as well.
Please wait until you can sit down and really explore the characters you believe are without weaknesses before making that judgement call - you might be surprised at what you find.