Again, where do you draw the line? What's the cutoff point? I went with the vaccine approach because I couldn't find a good solution to the question of power levels. If you have a good idea about it, let me know - most people complain about the way I've done things, but so far nobody's stepped up and provided even an idea to work out a better system.
I'd say there is no clear-cut "everyone is 100% satisfied" solution. ...But that's not say there's not better solutions and worse solutions.
Here's what I think, off the top of my head, would have been the best:
You've clearly identified that reality warpers are a "problem." (As a side note: I agree. Their inclusion is part of the reason I've sat this MPFC out. Went through that in the last one I followed a fair amount, and I have no interest going back) I'd just take the simplest solution and ban all reality warpers. Sure, this leaves you with the question of "What constitutes a reality warper?" And here's my answer: You, as a host, will have to make that decision yourself. Your decisions may not necessarily be popular, but at the very least they should hopefully be consistent, or at least reasonably close.
Instead, what I feel ended up happening was you identified reality warpers as a problem, but your solution was to introduce one that you felt is even stronger as a hard counter, but with an escape clause that would allow you to eliminate him the moment his "task" of eliminating the others was concluded. I find this problematic on several levels, some on a general level, some on a specific:
-Reality Warpers were defined as a problem, but now we have a bunch of them, and any other character who runs into them is now basically doomed. Sure, perhaps by the end you envision them all being eliminated, but it's going to take a while for this to happen. In the meantime, the reality warpers and your vaccine will annihilate their other opponents. At that point you might as well remove the vaccine and you might end up "saving" more matches at the cost of perhaps an extra round of reality warping matches (admittedly though, the round that might now be in peril could be the final, but there's no guarantee it wouldn't be even in the vaccine scenario should the finals be Vaccine v Problem)
-Assuming you go in with the vaccine's purpose as "Eliminate all problem cases" you are implicitly stating (at least to me) every match the vaccine is involved in is an automatic win. In "theory" this might be consistent (although I'd argue bad design) but on a specific level this could cause issues. Take The Host. My understanding from scanning the match he was in was that the voters could effectively "kick" him from the contest as he was bound to their will. Sure, that provides a way to make him lose once all the reality warpers are gone. ...But what if the voters invoke this early? It sounds like to me he should lose, but now the reality warpers are "free." For any consistency at all, I'd argue that you must honor the escape clause and have the vaccine lose, but obviously that's defeating the "purpose" of the vaccine. Which brings me from the specific back to the general: Micromanaging things to the extent where an entrant has a specific purpose to fulfill is probably not going to end well.
That's some of my thoughts on this at least. You can take with a grain of salt if you like, as I said, I've been sitting this MPFC out entirely, so my opinion may not "mean" as much regarding what's going on here. I've been checking in on some matches here and there, but that's about it.
--
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
GotD (219/384) Melee v FFX