It's astonishing that you think this is an "explanation," let alone a "reasonable explanation." I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the players asking for more comms from CB, but this response is a pretty big red flag that they're right. If CB (through its only representative who talks to players) thinks that saying the above means that they've explained something, then my God. They really need to hire someone who has the first clue about communication. I mean, if you don't want to explain the Bulleteer change, then sure, don't explain it, whatever. But to repeatedly insist you have explained it, after such a blatant non-answer, just conveys an incredible contempt for the people you're speaking to.
I think the biggest issue with the Bulletteer will remain that no one seems to have flagged it as an issue, even when they were aware of it. A small aside, Avatar's Remote Presence wasn't removed during N4. People just played it wrong because it used to have it during N3, and because it had a Pilot (Remote), so they assumed it was a data input error.
man... after n4 i came here and asked many times why samekh was more expensive than vertigo zond. why stempler and daleth was in differnet costs. I reminded it a few times . people came and said this is how CB balanced the game. Then after a few years now they are equal in price finally. I love Corvus Belli very much. I visited them even in their place in Vigo. Infinity is the only game i play. But frankly speaking they need to check these costs and possible mistakes more oftenly.
Because anything less than 100% of what the loudest voices *say* they ‘want’ is not good enough. And, once again, it’s worth noticing that the general tone of the initial thread in response to the Bulleteer change, plus the turn this thread and others have taken, provide ample reason as to why CB keeps most of their thinking to themselves. Or gives the reasoning behind changes in venues with little space for constant complaint.
Not want to overdramatize that, but that does realy not sound very good, no matter how to turn it I think if they said that based on actual data or statistics or climate change it seems that now the units need to be changed it would still sound better than "oh, there was an oopsie that exists since 3 years straight". That said, I still play bulleteers and I does not feel like it is the end of the world.
Speaking as a customer, it is not a sufficient reason. Can I ask what your role is here, on the forum? Sometimes it seems like you're involved in developing the game. Other times it seems like you're just the only active mod on the forums. Either way, you wade into every discussion to play devil's advocate or to tow the company line. Often times you're the only person providing semi-official explanations or justifications for whatever issue is being debated. Therefore, you act as the default spokesperson for CB on the forums. As a result you receive many derisive responses that come across as personal attacks, but are actually replies to what we perceive as "official" statements. I think that's one more reason people are requesting a community liaison. We need someone who can respond in a more official capacity, without regard to their individual opinions, and without overlapping with their duties as a moderator.
Aspects of "meta" are objective, and balancing based on those is just a good idea. What kind of player finds a more balanced game a detriment?
Well, if Gutier is afraid of being criticized when he's wrong, that's more evidence he deserves to have his face rubbed in that criticism.
Yeah, this is the "scrub" mentality - if it can beat me it's broken, if it loses to me it's balanced, my army needs a buff.
Pretty sure you have that backwards; before N4, Avatar had G: Mnemonica, not G: Remote Presence. It had Remote Presence added accidentally during the N4 transition. There was a lot of excited celebration by CA players over this fact.
I will take this quote as stand-in for similar statements. To me, this is an explanation. Now you can be angry or irritated that it took CB several years to find it and you can assume (most likely rightfully so) that there are more errors that were not fixed for several years and you can mistrust the formula and CB. You want insights in the QA process, regular updates and/or blog entries about the backgrounds of balance changes. But it does not change the fact, that there was an error in the formula for this unit and it was fixed. That is the reasoning/explanation for this change. And since the formula is considered business secret, they can not tell you more like „when we added points for X and Y, we forgot to add Z“. To me it seems that a lot of anger/irritation does not stem from the explanation itself, but from the (partially assumed, partially factual) implications of that explanation.
I think you are correct. That explanation would have been perfectly acceptable, if some relevant aspect of the game had undergone a recent update. However, N4 is almost three years old at this point, and the fireteams update was over a year ago. It also would have been acceptable if it were communicated as a balance update, and properly justified. For example: "bulleteer was over represented in our data, compared to other PanO rems; this update is intended to increase diversity in list building." We don't need a full blog post, just a basic statement of intent, communicated in an official manner. So without any further explanations we are left with the concerning implication that, best case scenario, no one bothered checking the points formula for at least a year.
Why from the myriad of possible scenarios that could have happened, you chose the one that would portray CB in the worse light? I also find some of the behavior shown above, disappointing.
No, there are ways to portray CB much worse. He's being generous. We find some of CB's behavior dissapointing as well.
