Differing perspectives on balance stem directly from differences in gaming philosophy

I think your “between Tac Axe and Relic Blade” benchmark is fair, but I’d like to bring back something Reginald and I discussed a while ago in the Stop discussing DS4 and start discussing infinite aoe thread.

[@ Reginald] (don’t mean to summon him here)

Reginald: I think its a hair overtuned and i said so on launch day. But i really like the weapon and there are at least costs and downtime associated with its power curve and most of the things that make it actually nutty are talent tree problems. Its the best designed power weapon in the game and I wouldn’t look at a nerf for it for now.

That depends heavily on each weapons position within the 40k lore and its relative balance to other weapons. It also depends on if it deprived other players or fun, challenge, or agency. (Smite is horrible for the latter two). I use a reproducable testing system that I’ve described at length in other places to determine weapon TTKs and try to knock down the nails that stand out and fill the holes that are too deep without eliminating flavorful differentiation.

I don’t disagree with your benchmark, but this is exactly the kind of goalposting I’ve been pointing out. Today it’s “Tac Axe and Relic Blade are fine”, tomorrow someone will decide they’re overtuned simply because another weapon got nerfed or the meta shifted.

Even if Relic Blade sits slightly above the curve rn, it’s not a problem unless we start moving the bar every time something else changes. If we keep shifting the milestone, then no weapon will ever be “safe” from nerf calls, and “fun, challenge and agency” as the measure for balance is problematic because these are entirely subjective. What feels fun to one player can be frustrating to another, and if balance is guided by shifting personal metrics, the standards will constantly move.

Maybe that’s why FS does spreadsheet balancing after all, despite it being far from ideal or player friendly.