Based on any law of necessitation (Oh, say, Maslow's heirachy of needs, for example), it would be pertinent to assume that that would be their approach - in essense, any time a person (or, to complete the analogy, a char) has an extreme need it rises to the top of the actions pile. When chars don't have any significant need their priority is lessened and they do not get attention.
This would, by all accounts fairly well represent the way that forum based QQ works.
The fundamental flaw with this system is that when there is a significant imbalance in the ratio of respective professions.
Consider this situation:
100 enforcers
100 crats
100 doctors
80 soldiers
80 engineers
40 shades
10 advies
3 NT's
2 MA's
1 keeper
1 MP
1 trader
1 agent
If you assume that in the beginning there were equal proportions of all professions, and, you can assume that for every nerf or overpowered gain of another prof that a few members of each OTHER prof left out of frustration, that you start to see why some professions endure as popular choices over time.
Subsequently, in mature game stage, another problem arises. This problem is a artifact of poor game management in ther previous stage of game development.
This problem is completely different from the previous. Now the problem is imbalanced representation, and fallacious representation of needs among the population.
Now, when there is such a heavy bias towards the big 4, there is a massive undermining of the general principal of needs and priorities. here's why:
1. If there is 1 MA on the forums, and MA's get nerfed, one MA can only post so much before he finally gives up, in which case there will be no more MA representation on the forums and thus MA's can be nerfed forever and no one will care, furthermore because no-one ever sees actiave MA's in game, no one, despite how bad player they might be, will QQ over MA's because there are none. thus rendering them a static profession. They no longer recieve benefits, and no longer recieve nerfs.
2. If there is 100 enforcers on the forums, if they get wind of even a tiny nerf, the QQ fest will rage far into the night and not stop until the Dev's have relented. hence cementing enforcers in the top ranks of "I cry until I get what I want" and never leave the top spot (notice anything familiar?)
3. This situation is self perpetuating and relative balance is always and completely skewed towards the professions represented by the top 4-5 profs. Every other prof languishes. As time marches on, the effects can be seen in game and on forums, and in the Dev's patch notes. Enforcers never get nerfed, they get the biggest gains, and everyone who wants to be remotely competitive MUST roll an enforcer - and their presence on forums and in game continues to rise.
Hegemony befits hegemony.
Therefore, whatever approach you think FC has, is actually not an approach, it's actually some whimsical denigration of responsibility where they merely try to maintain the status quo of the most populous profs to keep them happy.
The assumption that they have "an approach", therefore is flawed by 1. game maturity 2. lack of responsibility and proper integration of a heirarchy of needs during game adolescense and 3. lack of leadership during mature game stage that might have repositioned the development team in the ranks of "good" GD's as opposed to "bad" GD's who merely attempt to carry the torch before they fall on their face.
On another note, I am an modeller. So, I actually build complex programs for a living, and trust me, the approach is the first thing you need to explain to any peer review board.
The approach doesn't have to be any significant document on it's own, but it should be included in any document reporting on the modelling system (or software). As such, you would expect that FC has an approach.
I've never in the entire time I've been playing AO (or any other MMO) seen so much as a documented "approach" to anything.
Contrary to your assumption, however, and, as I stated previously, there is no historical evidence that they have this approach - they certainly are not adjusting all professions at once. That is a poor assumption Obtena. There is no evidence that they will attempt this at any point prior to the company running out of money.
In fact, I will show you several pieces of evidence to refute this assumption.
1. Very recently MA's (this patch) wil be nerfed (this shows that they are adjusting individual professions that they feel "got more than expected"
2. Shades very recently got a full rework on whatever their nemesis nano was
3. Keepers, by extension, got the removal of a virtually game breaking nemesis nano (which really didn't matter however because it was sort of an *******s only, use that against keepers)
4. Some ridiculous addition to the MA toolset was provided with the kuma tonfa, which, while interesting for the first 30 seconds of equipped gameplay, faded into the posthumus haze of "another failed attempt" by FC to farsically appease MA's in PVM. And, needless to say, was a complete waste of time - especially now paired with the ultimate fail of removing the disharmony damage proc.