It generally seems like there is a very, very disproportionate level of data/evidence/persuasion/logic/etc that is required to rebalance something rather than keep the current balance... Even if you dismiss the abysmally low success rate of balance threads, there is a generally large resistance to change that heavily impacts FAF's balance.
- A sparky still can't build radar despite no real good reason for that and it being a minimally used unit that is not too good. Comparatively, if a sparky could already build radar now, there is basically no chance whatsoever that that ability would be removed in the current balancing environment. Whether it is 'considered better-balanced' with that ability or without it seems to be rooted in whether or not it already has that ability moreso than whether or not it should.
- Kennels have very bad bp/mass and are blatantly inferior to alternative bp options in the large majority of practical situations. High level players barely use them compared to their alternative sources of bp, and it's not like kennels are overpowered. If, for example, kennels cost 20% less mass than they do now, they'd still be more inefficient than their alternatives, and I think there would be basically zero chance that the balance team would then nerf them to their current levels in the current balancing environment.
The thing is, if resistance to change wasn't such a driving force in FAF's balancing, then known long-term discrepancies like those basically wouldn't exist. If something was too strong, it would be nerfed. If something was too weak, it would be buffed. Instead, it seems more like imbalanced things have to exceed a particularly high threshold level of imbalance and or be of sufficient interest to the current balance team to be rebalanced.
PS: the purpose of this thread is not about sparkies or kennels; those were just examples. The purpose of this thread is to point out and hopefully prompt change regarding the level of resistance to change versus what's best for the game/community regarding FAF's balancing environment.
PPS: The increasing use of thread locking to end civil discussions on topics trying to change the status quo is a frustrating and undesirable trend and should be reduced. I would not like this thread to, for example, be closed with the claim that it has 'served its purpose' when it has not (which has repeatedly occurred with other threads).