The idea that balancing characters should revolve around nerfing them is inherently stupid. The highest level of skill comes from players that utilize technically challenging characters in order to win. Sheik, Zero Suit Samus, and Rosalina are examples of this. But taking away their good tools even if they're technically difficult to perform doesn't encourage high-level play. Likewise, Bayonetta's match up was different and more patient (and "easier" to perform), but she wasn't destroying the competition. There were no Bayonettas, especially those seemingly coming from unknown places, placing high in Smash tournaments. So what was the reason for the nerf? Well, a very obnoxious, loud portion of an already small fighting game community caused a big enough stink about it that it was hastily nerfed, rather than giving players a chance to actually learn the matchup. Sure, it makes people play the game longer because they have to learn the new mechanics of the game, but ultimately, wouldn't you rather just have a good game made in the first place...?
I don't hate Smash 4. I don't hate fighting games. I love them, even if I'm terrible at just about every one. But patching is my least favorite "enhancement" of the online-gaming era because, though it purportedly makes a broken game "better" it also smothers the potential a game had before that- and Bayonetta's stupid Marvel combos were different, fun to watch, and punished players that didn't have a comprehensive perspective of the game. Patches make it easy to forget how stupid your initial idea was, but its also a lazy excuse to put less effort into something.
I am in the group that believes games can be artistic in nature, but I don't think the industry is poised in that direction, and the nature of patches reflects this. You all keep saying "having a huge amount of competitively viable characters is a good thing!" But that's not what I'm arguing at all.