if you play them as the boucner is suppsoed to be played?
That's not what you're doing though. You're trying to stifle the discussion with your definitions and beliefs of some hypothetical perfection, which isn't even the point for either aspect of this discussion.
In your terms: "How Hero is supposed to be played" and "How Bouncer is supposed to be played" have equal performance, but "How Bouncer is supposed to be played" requires a lot more effort, that's still an imbalance. No video of a Bouncer player successfully staying on top of more demanding weapon and ability management will show a loss in performance relative to your perfection ideal. But does that make it right that they have to work more for the same output?
(Edit: And with reference to your comparison of Bouncer on depth 33 and Force on depth 30, I'd hope everyone could agree which of those two looks laid-back and which one looks positively hyperactive. Naturally this is just a comparison of one player per class once again, but these are videos you linked.)
In more relevant terms, as noted earlier in this topic, some players on JP are abandoning "how Bouncer is supposed to be played" in favour of sticking to one weapon type and replacing the loss of 50% of their boost abilities with focusing on the time saved not switching weapons and stances and mechanics abuse to get more out of the reduced abilities they do use. To remind: Bouncer is not Fighter or Force where the skill tree encourages specialisation of one or perhaps two weapons or elements. Between switch strike and boosts that work exactly 50% of the time per weapon it is "supposed" to rotate the weapons. Players consciously moving away from that indicate an issue.
you try to disprove what i am saying by telling me "your proof is not legit"
I have not said this, and your misuse of quotation marks is seriously not appreciated. Kindly stop.
I have consistently stated that your efforts to stifle discussion with an elaborate form of "git gud" is neither useful nor welcome. This has nothing to do wtih legitimacy or proof, two words I don't even believe I've used until this post.
Returning to the point of hypothetical perfection, we need to view skill ceilings and floors to explain why your approach to this discussion is not useful. Here is a totally hypothetical chart to visualise the relative performances of two different classes:
By your singular definition of "how the class is supposed to be played", no rebalancing is necessary because everyone should always be playing at 100% peak performance without exception and the two classes are equal at that one precise point. The skill ceiling of both classes is - in this example - 80 arbitrary performance points.
By any other comparison, one class consistently performs better than the other one at every part of the player skill range, with one exception where it is still equal. This indicates that there is a difference in the complexity when it comes to playing the classes, such that an average player (or even a great player on an off day) would perform better with the former class, and it would take a player in the top third of the skill range of the worse class to reach 60 arbitrary performance points and exceed the skill floor of the better class to outperform the absolute worst player at that class.
Obviously this is a massive oversimplification and there are several other factors involved. Maybe a player has better equipment with one class than another class, or maybe they have better equipment than another player with the same class. Maybe they're broadly good but don't happen to have learned a game-changing trick. Maybe different players just happen to be more naturally suited to certain play styles than others (amusingly referenced by Zeno speaking of his photon aptitude skewing Ranger in Episode 1).
The point I'm getting at here is it does not aid the discussion to not only limit the entire comparison to one singular point (in your case the 100%) but to also try to demand everyone else in the topic obeys your order to do the same.
To me, the kind of difference shown in the chart would be an imbalance that the class use variety and the game as a whole would benefit from seeing addressed, even if it's not an imbalance that matters to you.