You fundamentally changed the game and f'ed my campaign.

[Chaos Theory]

So machine guns are almost worthless now at range. I wasted parts to outfit one, wasted parts to make ammunition for one and am stuck in the middle of my campaign needing to completely rebuild new guns to compensate for this sudden change.

I'll set this aside. Please let us know when you're done with knee-jerk reaction changes due to "community feedback". Thanks!

[Butcher]

Good thing sniper rifles are untouched, keeping high damage, high accuracy, low ammo costs and long range.

[Furin]

Now that they only fire 3(ish) shots in overwatch one must be very careful with setting up the zone of control. Unfortunately I haven't figured out how to shorten it, like in the normal overwatch, if that's even possible.

[RejectedByAnthonyDavis]

This is a bad starting attempt at game balancing. Almost Overwatch-quality.

Machine guns are now basically assault rifles that use more ammo. Actually I'm not even sure if I'd use them over ARs or sniper rifles even if they came with unlimited ammo, if my primary goal is to you know...win.

[Bozzemoggel]

at least the RPK 74 is still a beast,... shredding enemies like a laser beam
tbh the LMG overwatch was way too powerful, for me Spike was always killing 5-8 enemies with near 100 % accuracy, each turn, just like that...
but now it´s the complete opposite... so, guess they might adjust it once more

[RejectedByAnthonyDavis]

Originally posted by Bozzemoggel:

at least the RPK 74 is still a beast,... shredding enemies like a laser beam
tbh the LMG overwatch was way too powerful, for me Spike was always killing 5-8 enemies with near 100 % accuracy, each turn, just like that...
but now it´s the complete opposite... so, guess they might adjust it once more

Disregarding the fact that you paired the LMG with a Merc who is specialized at using that weapon (i.e. a process called OPTIMIZATION), the scenario you highlighted above is indeed a real one, which could have been addressed by (a) lowering the LMG's damage, (b) reducing the maximum no. of overwatch shots or (c) lowering the LMG's accuracy.

Instead, they applied all 3. Would you even bother feeding it ammo after this change? I wouldnt. All hail Sniper Rifles (again).

[Zack]

Originally posted by RejectedByAnthonyDavis:

Originally posted by Bozzemoggel:

at least the RPK 74 is still a beast,... shredding enemies like a laser beam
tbh the LMG overwatch was way too powerful, for me Spike was always killing 5-8 enemies with near 100 % accuracy, each turn, just like that...
but now it´s the complete opposite... so, guess they might adjust it once more

Disregarding the fact that you paired the LMG with a Merc who is specialized at using that weapon (i.e. a process called OPTIMIZATION), the scenario you highlighted above is indeed a real one, which could have been addressed by (a) lowering the LMG's damage, (b) reducing the maximum no. of overwatch shots or (c) lowering the LMG's accuracy.

Instead, they applied all 3. Would you even bother feeding it ammo after this change? I wouldnt. All hail Sniper Rifles (again).

triple nerfing is never a way to get good balance results. the devs hav much to learn as it seems.

[[ScrN]PooSH]

LMGs are ruined now, at least on Mission Impossible. I describe the problem in detail here:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1084160/discussions/0/3807282428853137223/

I'm stuck in Act 2, defending my mines from waves of the army invasion. Raven still scores almost 100% of LMG shots 30 tiles away, with the exception that those shots kill nobody now.

[Salinga]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory:

Please let us know when you're done with knee-jerk reaction changes due to "community feedback". Thanks!

Above all, such behavior quickly generates a loss of trust. I would like to briefly explain what I mean with an example.

At the moment I switch between WH40k Chaos Gate and JA 3.

Both games are in my opinion in the same genre, but very different from each other. But that's not the point. It's about the behavior of the developers to the reactions of the community.

In the case of WH40k CG, there was heavy criticism almost from the beginning, especially regarding the difficulty of the game. It should be said that WH40k CG can be truly annoying. Almost everything that happens in the game goes against the player.

How did the developers react? Well, not at all. No communication, the first DLC made the game even more difficult. Consequently more criticism. Still no communication, no changes to the difficulty.

I have to admit that I prefer such behavior from the developer side. Because I know that these people do their own thing. Therefore, I can also decide whether I want to deal with the game in the long term or not. In the case of a studio that almost hectically makes changes to game values or even mechanics based on forum posts, this is unfortunately not possible. It may be that they change the game almost monthly due to the criticism of a few players.

One should also never forget that the vast majority does not post on forums.

In my opinion, Age of Wonders 4 is a good example of too many and too fast changes. Of course, this assessment may or may not be true. In the end, I prefer it when a developer studio thinks for itself, so to speak.

The whole thing is especially bad when PvP is still available. The whole thing is reminiscent of the well-known plagues from the MMO genre.

And why it is almost always only Nerfed and not Buffed may know the universe.

[Bloody]

the only thing that made the LMGs OP was the brain dead AI running into the overwatch zone constantly, some times multiple times..

[[ScrN]PooSH]

JA3 receives biweekly patches - it is a perfect period IMHO. Enough time for players to adapt to changed mechanics and provide feedback while not so long to lose interest and rage-quit playing the game due to broken features.

However, "overshooting" with balance tweaks must be avoided. Change one thing at a time, playtest it, analyze feedback, then repeat if necessary. LMGs were too OP and required a nerf - that's for sure. My biggest concern was too high long-range accuracy - LMG acted like a full-auto sniper rifle. Some players thought the damage was too great, while others complained about the ridiculous kill count - a single well-placed LMG could kill the entire enemy squad per turn. The problem is that developers delivered three separate "solutions" to three issues despite one affecting another. Reducing accuracy also lowers the total amount of damage, which, in turn, results in a lower kill count. Lowering raw damage does almost the same, and reducing interrupt count doubles down on that. As a result, "LMG kills everything" turned into "LMG kills nothing", and "LMG being OP" => "LMG is useless". Devs should either reduce accuracy OR damage OR interrupt count - "OR" not "AND".

Community feedback analysis should also be improved. "What players need", "What players want", and "What players say" - are three different things. Community feedback is delivered in the "What players say" form, but the developers must convert it into the "What players need" state before the implementation. For instance, players said they wanted to nerf three LMG stats, thinking it would improve the balance. But in reality, we need better AI. Enemies are mindlessly running into the LMG Overwatch zone like suicidal idiots - that's what kills them in the first place.

[suejak]

Yes, this change was really badly implemented. They took a weapon with unlimited uninterrupts for which agility was irrelevant and turned it into an agility-reliant weapon with just a few interrupts based on agility.

Absolutely horrible change that made the game less fun by removing one of the most unique, interesting weapons in the game that was already balanced by ammo availability. It could have been nerfed by moving further in that direction.

[Bozzemoggel]

Originally posted by Salinga:

Above all, such behavior quickly generates a loss of trust. I would like to briefly explain what I mean with an example.

At the moment I switch between WH40k Chaos Gate and JA 3.

Both games are in my opinion in the same genre, but very different from each other. But that's not the point. It's about the behavior of the developers to the reactions of the community.

In the case of WH40k CG, there was heavy criticism almost from the beginning, especially regarding the difficulty of the game. It should be said that WH40k CG can be truly annoying. Almost everything that happens in the game goes against the player.

How did the developers react? Well, not at all. No communication, the first DLC made the game even more difficult. Consequently more criticism. Still no communication, no changes to the difficulty.

I have to admit that I prefer such behavior from the developer side. Because I know that these people do their own thing. Therefore, I can also decide whether I want to deal with the game in the long term or not. In the case of a studio that almost hectically makes changes to game values or even mechanics based on forum posts, this is unfortunately not possible. It may be that they change the game almost monthly due to the criticism of a few players.

I don´t understand... in which universe was WH40k CG too difficult ? Never lost a unit, not even in Iron Man mode :p (but ok, that´s just my experience)

On the other point, you´re absolutely right. There is nothing more enraging, than devs reacting without second thought, because "the community" wanted them to... Most players, especially when totally ok with the game, won´t tell you that. Then, after changes are made, they might be frustrated and the devs are in kind of a circle...

"when you try to please everyone, you will please no one" ^^

[mr_oluap]

"I don´t understand... in which universe was WH40k CG too difficult ? Never lost a unit, not even in Iron Man mode :p (but ok, that´s just my experience)"

Yeah the game is not very difficult in combat but it's mostly the events that can destroy your campaign if you pick the wrong choices a few times in a row

[Dorok]

Originally posted by ScrNPooSH:

players said they wanted to nerf three LMG stats, thinking it would improve the balance.

Really and where?

I never ever quote any single thread on topic dev butchered with last patch.

Force infinimines mod at Normal difficulty? Non sense butchering no stupid thread asking it or I'll bash it hard.

Remove mostly fully enemies squads bringing a bit of life in global map at Normal difficulty? Absurd, and no stupid thread asking it or I'll bash it hard.

And yeah I never ever seen any thread requesting butcher MG, a lot more for SR and more for Stealth.

[Swato85]

I have not used machine guns befire, because tbey sucked - not that they were not effective, but they were cumbersome, require preparation and eat into your ammo reserves more than mercs into money. Now they got nerfed and its basicaly like a nail in the coffin. It was already a logistics and skill task to use them effectively and now they are nit worth it even that much. Now what kind of lazy brightguy camed up with such a Genius idea?.... Omg... Dont put rational players into one bag with goons who overmodded their games and cry for it being too easy or whatever was their case. Give brains to AI, let them use mgs in equaly threatening manner, not just being constantly beelining into chokepoint for easy kills. Let them use smokes, sneak, allow them oneshot downing like player has. Let them set mg positions, place spotters, land mines. There are things that can be done to make combat matter and not just nerf choke point control.