Note: Probably only Gea will read this. Even then I am doubtful.
Certainly I cannot deny that this game has moves intentionally made to combo, and others that were buffed to replicate the more organic play seen by top tier characters. Obvious example of a "set BNB" move is SDR Ness's dash attack.
Sure if you ASDI down the last hit you force a tech, but otherwise, it's very probable you will be hit in the face with a B-air.
On the other hand, moves like Mewtwo's F-air and Zelda's Side-B were given duration and angle changes (respectively) for other utilities, but developed into combos due to how these changes operated "in nature."
I guess I would ask how much of Melee is actually "natural" and "organic" and how much is, whether it is the intention of the developers or not, essentially calculated to function as a set combo. Is intent important enough to differentiate the developer who goes out of his way to make character moves different down to knockback stats differing by intervals of 1 (Sakurai) to the "tournament" player who sits down and calculates by mathematics or sheer tomfoolery "how X can combo into Y/Z accounting for this DI, etc." What makes Falco's shine different from Ness's dash attack so to speak?
--------------
Now design philosophy. Well Gea, I admit it was flawed. It's pretty obvious that if your set baseline for balance is near the top, you will delve into the characteristics that make top characters good and surely without doubt replicate them to some extent. This is a two-way dilemma.
On one hand you are making every character "the same" because you are emphasizing the same strengths, even if they are distributed differently per character. This is boring. Captain Falcon is (IMO) boring, but he is definitely a character of extremes who has demonstrated stable viability in an applied, non-theoretical capacity.
He runs hot and cold, low-tier characters, by the constraint that is their design (lack of range and/or mobility, and/or recovery, and/or KO potential, etc.), also run hot and cold.
Whether we intended to or not, there is no denying that we gravitated toward "okay this character has good traits A, B, and C. We're gonna make A, B, and C better, sprinkle in some run speed and if this character can beat Fox I think we did an okay job. Next." Derp.
It is a challenge to make every character both unique and competitive without...breaking something. It is even more so considering the limitations of the system and the directed audience.
Some characters were made to be bad. Otherwise they have overwhelming "go-to" moves that reek of poor design. This is not exclusive to "random Smash Bros. mod" but is rampant in commercial, widely-acclaimed games as well. This is basically a john that inevitably "something has to be broken to work...because well...people always did it this way. So...why not right?"
-----------------
The BIGGEST bad design philosophy cause is definitely the fact that we intend(ed) for everyone to be able to beat the big bad woodland creatures from outer space.
I think everyone knows why this is a bad idea. Spacies have tons of options. They are well-made in one of the worst possible ways. So what happens when everyone can beat Fox and Falco? Other characters get left behind.
What happens to them? They get buffed.
What happens then? Power creep.
This is the dangerous path.
Yet at the same time, many players will assert that if Character F (random Latin character) cannot beat Fox/Falco/whoever, then what is the point of the mod? Is this really a "balance patch" then?
Opinions. Opinions everywhere.
I admit this game has obvious problems. Like "hey we know about this since pre-release and we think it's sorta dumb. But hey Shine is a dumb move so if people can accept that then why not our jank right?"
Well apparently not. So what should be done considering there's already a product out and it's equally foolish to not stand by it.
As for not being receptive to feedback, I'll admit there's an obvious PR issue. Since I am not the sole face of SD Remix, I have to greatly consider the acts of others too. Not to say I am perfect in the least. Far from it.
obv