Thank you for providing that reasoning. That's much better and reasonable than 'god im glad you're not involved with the team', and I retract my brainlet statement with regards to you. I appreciate you being passionate.
If I had to balance the game by nerfing classes - gunpoint and told to by someone on the team, because I don't like removing players' enjoyment - I'd definitely say that Marauders are underperforming had I looked at the avg Marauder player. You wouldn't be looked at as an example, but an extreme - you're way above the average.
Games should not be balanced around one game mode when they have several.
Game developers should not listen to the sole feedback of one person - even if they're at the top of the food chain. That's why threads like this one get created; so a hodgepodge of opinions can be displayed.
It is my opinion that every time the team focuses on balance, they end up wasting development time - time that could be better spent to work on other areas of the game.
I'm excited to see how Max & Dalen's ability revamp ends up when it goes live, because it'll be a reset to 1.4.8 mechanics. Hopefully there's no widespread changes like RoR did over the years after that. It's what got us here with 'balancing' to begin with - narcissists on the development team wanting to change Warhammer Online because they thought they could do it better than the game that shut down, despite the game shutting down due to no fault of the developers.
The metagame in RoR (and any game, really) will always form appropriately no matter the content.
In games like GunZ: The Duel, K-Style with two shotguns was predominant as the preferred way to play the game. There are different ways to play GunZ (using a dagger, using other ranged weapon types, etc) but the best clans will always use the formed meta weapons and the rest is left up to individual skill.
That metagame formed because those weapons were simply the best for all scenarios. The same will happen when the ability revamp hits.
I want to address the 'devs can't balance ****' jab, yet again - if a designers' qualification requires them to play the top in the game they're playing at, no AAA company would have any designers. The developer making the change doesn't need the numbers, just a description of how it would impact existing mechanics. Knowing the numbers gets them the job, learning how to develop games that are fun lets you keep the job.
If you remove a form of 'fun' in the game, a form of 'fun' (or benefit, because removing fun in this way sucks) must be added in turn for those who had their class changed.
And if you remove the fun of something, an equal amount or better of fun must be added in another place. I don't think it's an unreasonable idea to do so, and that's my opinion.
