Games that have active development never reach perfect balance, but that doesn't mean you should not strive to achieve it. To get there you do have to buff and nerf, you can't just buff forever. Its like saying the volume goes up to 11 instead of 10, nerfs are not an inherently bad thing it just depends on a whole slew of factors. So "never suggest a nerf" is quite unrealistic imo
I think its healthy to discuss things and as long as you're constructive a bit of playful insulting is OK imo. I don't go out of my way to insult people, but I am concious of the fact that undermining the validity of a role by implying it requires nerfs could be insulting. I don't really agree with being middle of the fence and safe, there is a disingenuousness about that that will not translate into game balance. You have to be quite ruthless with it and not take it personally or feel you should avoid stepping on toes.
Pro's for ranged: They increase teamwork by encouraging players to group together and form shield walls. They stop people randomly running around the map like headless chickens. They create an interesting dynamic that is worth keeping in the game, like tactical manoeuvring to take them out
Con's for ranged: Ranged shots can be very cheap and require little actual input from a player besides pointing a clicking. Damage applied from positions of safety where you aren't challenged much in player vs player combat. The actual game mechanics are far far less deep than melee or cav combat, its crosshairs and fast moving projectiles with little dip. Loads of ammo so fail over and over and hit something. Random headshots that insta kill for no good reason. People pick ranged because they don't want to have to get good at the game
I could do the same for shielders, cav, polearm or 2 hander, but cba atm. I don't really agree with people being biased and selfish about their playstyle. Nerf the crap out of poles if that increase skill and tactics based gameplay, I wouldn't care if it achieved that goal.
