Appreciate the responses everyone. Again, I'm not trying to bag on MK11 specifically, just noting what I've observed throughout NRS games.
I'm not even arguing that they should change anything (clearly the NRS formula is working for them, they outsell the competition by an order of magnitude and carry enough cultural weight to sell t-shirts and action figures of their characters), I'm just curious about the logic behind their choices.
I think MK11's approach towards balance weirdly highlighted some of these issues. A common (and justified) complaint around here is that the game was "flattened" towards making all the characters feel kinda samey leading to a lack of expression. Part of that was throwing in a lot of universal mechanics, like meter regen, FBs all being activated the same and tied to health with the same armor activating on the same frame, KBs, short hops for each character, wake up U3s and U4s instead of distinct invincible reversals, etc.
So everyone works off the same tools. Fine, sure, that's one way to make a game balanced (even if it does seem a little boring). But then some character just have better versions than others. As said before, some FBs are just more useful than others and let certain characters shut down the zoning game, or punish at a distance, combo from odd trades, etc. U4 wake ups/Flawless Bs across the cast vary in usefulness.
When you flatten everything out like that, the few differences that exist stand out. It's most notable in specific instances like FBs, but it also applies to the larger game.
Like say I like playing a zoning character and I look at Jade vs Cetrion. They both offer strong zoning, great. They both have good normals, perfect. But Cetrion can convert her hits to higher damage, Jade has no way of matching her combos. Uh oh. And she also has more of a mix up game to play with, and access to a much faster/safer TP than Jade's. Eek. So unless I'm a Jade fanatic, why would I bother playing her?
And yes, absolutely this logic can be applied to EVERY fighting game and all characters. But I feel like in other games there is a bit more nuance at play, a bit more to look at than just what's on paper. Like in Strive you have Ram and Goldlewis, both characters with similar win conditions. They want to bully their opponent into the corner and crush them there with unbearable pressure and high damage combos when they do get a hit. While Ram is considered better overall, there are different reasons you might want to play GL instead outside of aesthetics/taste (maybe you value the high/low mix of his BT more than Ram's rekka mix, maybe you like dealing a lot of chip damage, maybe you just love his jump D). But the way MK11 works, I struggle to really come up with reasons to play a "worse" character outside of personal taste and character love.
I don't know, I think it's odd.