As someone who is a software developer for one of the biggest names in the biz, the coding isn't the issue. You want to give a default buff to MA and EM for stalkers? Add in their AoE. Not to say they are balanced as EM would need more than just that, and it is only for one AT. What takes time? Deciding HOW to buff a set. Do you simply straight up copy TW's numbers? What if they have a different number of AoE and ST attacks? What are the end costs? Recharges? Base damage? DoT? What's fair? How is each set suppose to feel? SS, Claws, Savage, Ice, and KM feel different, but how are they balanced? Claws has ranged attacks so maybe it does lower damage, but how much lower? Ice gets a power for AoE mitigation with no damage. How do you balance that even against a set which has a ST mitigation attack, ie Psy? Honestly, how does one define balanced as that's multiple meetings right there. Now try doing this for all of the sets lower than TW versus simply fixing TW. Moving a base number of damage from 7 to 10 is easy. Knowing that's what you are suppose to do is the hard part. This says nothing of testing those changes. A developer can easily spend 80% of their time not coding. Trust me, balancing all of the sets is going to lead to way more meetings, theory crafting, and testing than straight coding. I've honestly lost count the amount of times a fix in a game for balance issues had an unexpected outcome once it hit live. Even if it only went to beta, the DM changes were deemed too good once they got in the hands of players.