Yeah I do agree that they changed too much all at once. I know it’s because updates are finicky and costly on consoles, but the usual cycle of identify problem -> tweak problematic stats or mechanics -> receive feedback and reevaluate isn’t happening, which is the crux of good balancing. There’s also the issue that, from what I can tell*, they seem to rely soley on hard data without really considering the context of said data or why it might be caused. Numbers and statistics can’t tell a whole story on their own. I can only assume this is why a lot of the updates or rebalancing seems out of left field (change to the sentry’s attack) or too nuclear (El Dragon).
In an ideal world, I would have liked to see the minions get buffed with no change to the sentry or addition of the shepherd bot yet, then see if they’re still getting shredded after considering player feedback. If they are, then look into nerfing the AoEs or adding the shepherd bot. If they’re still killed too easily, add whatever wasn’t added in the previous step. This would have given time for the playerbase to adjust and led to more focused, precise changes that address the issues instead of simply replacing them with new ones.
Steam is friendlier regarding updating games, perhaps the PC edition could be used to trial new changes before sending them to consoles. Some games do it that way, so they can get more feedback on changes before setting them in stone. With, of course, some consideration to how differently the platforms perform and play. I’m not sure how viable such a set up would be from GBX’s standpoint though. Could be completely undoable for all I know.
*Please do not take everything I say as hard fact. I’m only going off what I can infer and read.