Obviously, one knows or at least has a general understanding of what makes characters top tier. Plethora of good to strong tools that could patch up any weaknesses they -should- have. Why do you think Litchi has never been worse than "strong" in any iteration of BB, fucking with her staff mechanic would destroy her even if you slowed down her buttons or adjusted her frame data. Her drive just adds that much to her gameplan, same thing with Arakune--
Arakune is either really good or fucking abysmal, there has been no in-between for him as fucked as a mechanic as curse is. Its hard to state even though I just said that cursed is fucked but, I believe team Blue has gotten way better at handling how characters are supposed to function when it comes to character specifics like their drives. You have characters like Valkenhayn who's entire gameplan revolves around resource management akin to Carl/Relius, and Valk was borderline broke in CP1--
But I digress.
I started this to give a bit of insight on design philosophy, I thought I did an alright job, but I feel as though I just rambled on honestly. To be quite honest, just typing it out and thinking about these characters and my main point, I honestly do believe some of the worse off characters could be better with tweaking. But because of how the game is with their current tool kit, some of them wouldn't be better than "okay" and if they were ever great it'd just be a wild time--
But then I think about the already great characters and their tools and compared to the ones I've brought up and its almost night and day. Obviously its just "lol fighting games" but sometimes I can't help to think about the meta/landscape we would have if some characters weren't as great as they are compared to some of the weaker characters now.
....nevermind living in a world where Terumi is great, enabling 13 year olds everywhere is a world I dont want any part of.
Thats my 2 week ted talk-
Microblogging for humans—and cute robot girls.