I got accused of saying that in-game a little while ago, even though I've never said it and don't believe it. I think some LSM players want people to call it OP so they can feel good about using it? I dunno, some kind of schadenfreude going on there probably. I think I've been either the most or the second-most careful person on the forums to talk about the SB from a CSM-perspective and not call it OP, but people hear what they want to I guess.
How about calling people shield bro trash in game? IMO it doesnt win the cause any friends or sympathizers lol. So if its not OP then all of this is for the bug fixes like blocking while down and thats completely fair! However calling for nerfs on the mobility for shieldbro strongly indicates that many think they are OP despite claims of never outright saying it for whatever reasons Fixes are for bugs, nerfs are for balance. Changing mobility to something drastically different from the norms such as an assault class inheriting devestator mobility is a nerf and not a fix. Fortunately since the class isnt OP meams those balance issues need not be a concern until the balancing sweep later in development when everything is in game. The bug fixes though, that needs to be corrected asap since it affects testing now and will make balance testing later unreliable.
And yet the developers have said the class is intended to be a defensive one, while it functions almost too well as an offensive one. So without saying that it's OP, it's still not functioning within the stated intentions of the developers. Adjusting the mobility would help bring it more into line with being a defensive class instead of the lone-wolf offensive class it currently is.
True, they said defensive sure but what does that mean? We can interpret that a million different ways and that is probably why we are on page 7 of this topic counting many other threads as well. They've also not defined what their full intentions of the class are which may very well be to sit at an empty friendly point holding your shield up running in circles. We just don't know but I do know they haven't nerfed it yet so they may have reasons, possibly waiting until the balancing patch since its not a massively game breaking concern right now in their metrics.
Yes, but one way to NOT interpret "defensive class" is with "offensive high-mobility solo class with partial invulnerability". And yes, SB has not been changed for quite some time while its counters have. That is one of the large reasons that this thread (and many others) have come to be; it does not appear that the level of nerfing and balancing (that wasn't even supposed to be happening at this stage of the game) is being applied consistently or fairly.
You see them as that by your definition, defensive criteria are already met just by having a shield since they have sacrificed offensive firepower for it so they are technically more defensive than anything else in this game. So they aren't lying or wrong about their assessment of this current version being "defensive" vs yours where they should be slow bullet sponges to be "defensive". The devs have also said balancing only happens at this stage if something is game breakingly OP which so far this issue doesn't seem to fit that criteria. As for saying the nerfs and balances being applied consistently or fairly...Are you insinuating that the devs are being bias and intentionally are punishing Chaos? Why would they do that? Perhaps, soon, they will view the SB as game breakingly OP given enough time to collect data since the counters to them have been nerfed as you mention. That is specifically in regard to balance issues, as for bugs they need to handle those as priority IMO before they start nerfing things since a bug can skew the apparent "OP" levels of something. I know for sure they don't view these threads for balancing since we are all the squeaky wheel minority who are too invested in their own interests to give unbias feedback. 40k fans are probably even worse than the normal gamers for feedback since we have years and years of preferences, bias and expectations built up so are unwilling to compromise.
No but they are just humans like everyone else and they also make mistakes (Pikko server anyone ? ) Show me where you find evidence pc was op? yet it got nerfed right?
They made the decision so it met their criteria for OP, I don't have to prove anything to you. They've done it themselves, they didn't likely make an arbitrary decision to nerf it because they hate you specifically.
Lol, have you seen the metrics? Pc was one of the least used weapons, there wasn't ANY data presented showing it was op in any way. Show me the criteria. And I repeat, they make mistakes, and they don't always agree amongst one another as well. they nerfed things, buffed and nerfed again. Do you need a better example than Pikko server mistake?
They do make mistakes of course, but alot of people are playing the victim rather than being rational. Pikko server was in pre-production, they attempted to implement and it didn't work. That's just development, it happens. Same with this merrygo round of nerfs, buffs, bugs and fixes. My point is the salty tears of crying that the devs are maliciously nerfing Chaos with this pitiable victim mentality. I remember the claims when we Chaos were stuck on the fucked end of Blackbolt with trenches, trying to take that map was hell and there were also sentiments the devs "hated" chaos forcing them through that.
