Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[Sombre]

Rebalancing and nerfing does NOT automatically equate to less variety or in any way ruin the gameplaying experience. Often the people saying they're worried about this happening are just trying to protect the way they play, doing exactly what they accuse others of by whining to try and get things their way.

Let's say random indy light infantry were an amazing unit. Basically better than any national recruitable, better than any other indy, widely available. So everyone's using them because they're great. All is fair. But effectively people who want to try and use varied strategies, make the most of different units and so on are being punished since it's always better to build these light infantry. So it is suggested they are overpowered and should be nerfed into line with the other units. I guarantee there would be a few people up in arms about how the game was in danger of being nerfed into oblivion and how X random online game was ruined by nerfs and people complaining and how nothing needed to be done because hey, everyone can build them, so they're fair.

I just don't get it. Is it that hard to understand that good balancing /increases/ variety? Ever heard of Rock Paper Scissors Mentok? It's like Rock Paper Scissors, but with the added variety of Mentok, which beats the other three and ties with itself. See where I'm going with this?

Honestly the only reason I can see for their behaviour is that they really like using the overpowered unit/tactic/spell/whatever being discussed, particularly if their opponent isn't using it and is trying to make use of the outclassed other options.