How balanced is gestalt with noncaster/caster progression?

[Godskook]

Say what you like Oslecamo. In some games it may even be true, depending on how lucky the non-optimizers are with their gestalt picks. It is clearly not balanced. I don't see any way to prove or disprove A>B by more or less than C>D. We have pointed out the flaws with it. The fact that it isn't balanced doesn't mean it might not be fun, so go for it.

Except the question being asked is:

A - B ?= C - D

The statements "A>B" and "C>D" are both given by the OP(I'm assuming "A = optimized gestalt", "B = non-optimized gestalt", "C = Optimized non-gestalt(Caster, normally)" and "D = non-optimized non-gestalt")

Given all that, I'd argue that "A ~= C", since adding gestalt doesn't make Pun-Pun anymore powerful. That reduces the original statement to:

B ?= D

And since the difference between B and D is the addition of gestalt, we know that B > D. So, strictly speaking:

A - B <= C - D

Or, the power-gap in gestalt is no worse, and quite probably better, than in non-gestalt play.

QED

'Course, that's assuming that blind logic can be applied to the situation, and that obscenely-broken is part of the consideration the poster wants. In actual play, you're dealing more with statistics than logic, and in statistics, given the starting point that each choice represents a variable increase in power, the more choices you allow, the greater the maximum degree of variance, and thus, the more ease in which you can find yourself with vastly disparate samples to deal with. You can hope that by adding choices, you force people towards the middle of the bell-curve, but as with every other *(&*) thing in statistics, there's no guarentee you'll succeed.