People like to talk about it as a matter of “it is bad” or “it is good”. That is not the issue.
Nerfed, balanced, whatever, are terms like saying “you are on the right/wrong side of history” or “this is morally wrong”. All that hinges on your personal take on what is what.
One can only talk as if “they had reason” if they use reason, and the only way to do that is when you can see why something can be good, and why something can be bad, and then you can reason on it.
Changes were made. If you for some reason has data on thrall behavior, you can see the changes were made and they change specific things about them.
“Nerfed”, or “balanced”, yes. If you get a thrall of a specific spawn line in the database and pitch it against the specific non thrallfied version of it, with the same armor and specs, the thrallfied version always gets “destroyed” in couple attacks by the non thrallfied version of the same spawn line. Open field, no intervention. Server settings at the 1 equally. That is a kind of “scientific” approach to the matter.
No matter what you think, if this is good or bad, they still go downhill from their power. One can argue: Yes, they are supposed to. You can even argue all the smashed head and thrall crafting might get them weaker. Fair enough, I think that is “immersive” RP, ok. Problem is: This still happening when the thrall is level 15, with a “master” full Authority. The question is not “ah, but you need to get them the best armor”, “ah, you need to get them the best weapons”, the question is only they are very much weaker than their NPC counterparts.
As if this is “good” or “bad” it is no matter. Since the “dawn of competitive gaming” that games which feature PvE and PvP have been doing crap in trying to please both groups in one same plane field of specs because that is not really possible. And at the same time, discussions about what measures are taken for it also always end in “My play is the most important”. While we can have an objective measure of that, as it possible to know by the devs and those who can find that out, how many people play PvP or PvE in a given game, it is at the end of the day Devs priorities that define which crowd to please.
As I use mods, I simply study in the method above (pitching thrall and non thrall version of the same spawn, one on one, no intervention, all set to 1, same armor, same weapons) and take notes on several fights, also using the “simulator” from Unreal Engine to “theorycraft” hundreds of fights per second. I devise a mod that simply make a thrall level 1 to be 20% inferior to its own “wild version”, and a level 20 to be 20% more powerful than the wild version. It is my game, so I mod it and I dont need to bother with the PvE/PvP discussions from those who play official servers, pvp, console, whatever.
But I can see why that is a problem to BOTH. To my perception, highly individual and from my perspective as what would be a PvE-C fan, inclined to think base should be possible to secure and a base made secure SHOULD be harder to invade than to protect, as any conservative minded person is led to think, I dont see why they should go down this route. The fact that they do make efforts to certain aspects almost all competitive able game devs do, is plain, as always game devs do:
- Make it easier to raid bases by artifices out of players’ control to foster competition. They go out of the way to make efforts to secure a base less effective than methods to raid a base, in order to avoid the need of lengthy and costly sieges, fostering “quick reward” gameplay over strategic gameplay.
- Make it so “sponge HP” is what matters about NPCs. Thralls are not that weak, but their method of fighting preconizes that they “face hits” instead of acting smart. That is not so “lack of complexity” as simple rules like “ant AI” can make them act smart. The thing is done this way to enhance the devs control over power by simply tweaking the ability to take damage to translate into NPC power. If AI was smarter, it would be infinitely more complex to control and tune the power of NPCs
- Define rules for engagement that foster the “first item here”, which is quick reward, so the game, as most games strive to, seem “passional”, “sanguine”, and do not entrench itself in the intricacies of allowing strategic play to get disproportionally (some may say unfairly, but fairness is a subjective assessment) bent towards smart play.
So while I myself think the game loses with the strive for a model of quick reward and fast paced gameplay, I also think that this kind of gameplay would make a game less popular, and at instances in which you cant make “two games out of one” to satisfy “everyone”, the choice of design must be made, and they must know why they are choosing to “side” with whomever they are siding with.
So I mod my game to change the way I want it to change, because I think that wont change anytime soon. The devs in this MUST and MADE their choice to what kind of gameplay to foster, and hardly there is much you can argue to change it.
Neither are better designs, just destined to different people.