You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact :)
The term "competetive" is not used correctly. We don't adjust things to be competetive, but to be fleshed out and usable, given we have tons of WIP stuff. The game is not about competition. We make changes for the game to take longer in general (as some people noticed correctly and which is not a "nerf" - if it is for you, expect tons of nerfs coming, though) and for gameplay to work out as we intend. There is no thinking about something is too "weak" or too "strong" with very few exceptions. We only assess the effects it has on gameplay time and interlinking mechanics. I'd agree on changes for baking being such exceptions, as in that case they were specifically changed to give them more use. In the long run baking recipes will simply be required for other things, though, so this was a simple bandaid. How that could apply to pickaxes, no idea. They must be used, there is no need to incentivize them and no competition for them. There is vehicles, but they serve a different purpose at other gameplay stages.
There is not much you could buff or nerf as that would imply to bring it in line for some strength that doesn't exist on collaborative gameplay. Professions aren't intended to be strong or compete with others. In opposite, they are supposed to not compete with other professions, but require their help. There will by the nature of diversity of professions always be professions some people will consider to be "stronger" or "weaker" for some goals they have in mind. But the point is those are not the goals we have in mind. We don't balance professions around income, for example.
I personally have never heard Anno 1800 buffing or nerfing anything either, by the way. Nor have I ever called changes to balance like that myself.
Just telling you that you can't expect me to comment on any "nerfs" or "buffs" when almost all changes we do are in a grand scope of the design goal working out. We will make changes to that all the time until the gameplay fits what we want, but never with "nerf" or "buff" in our minds. We can't talk on the same level if your assessment of things has additional things in mind that we never had. I have not seen many players in Eco approach changes to balance with that in mind either, as the terms generally convey unhappiness about competetive factors that we do not consider at all. That's why I say they don't fit. The majority of players using these terms convey such feelings. I wouldn't tell you this if it was otherwise, given I wouldn't be surprised about the usage of the terms you have shown. Probably to you "nerf" just means changing values down and "buff" values up. That's not what I perceive players to use the term for or what I have used it for myself - that would imply it's not having a judgment on competetive impact behind.
The best case I could think of when "nerf" could apply is when we would change stuff at mechanics, as they tend to make most money. But that again requires a view of competitiveness. The point is for all professions ultimately having enough content, but not all of them having equal opportunities for market income. (Just like real life) Competition at most is intended between the same profession on a market level, but our changes are typically in relation to unrelated professions.
Every profession needs to play their role, that can be vastly different from both gameplay (like lots of manual labour vs lots of crafting) and effects. Given we consider governmental mechanics to be a core mechanic, it is acceptable to us that professions by their nature aren't equal - which can result in different play experiences depending on governance. Farmers requiring a lot of room is a problem the government is supposed to solve (Just like real life). It probably doesn't hurt to tax the mechanics people a bit for that ... Point being - we have no intention to have professions in any way be the same "strength" or "competetive" level. Hence we also don't buff or nerf them usually. Each of them are supposed to have sufficient content, but also to be unique. That doesn't mean that Farmers will ultimately be able to compete with high industry goods in terms of income or anything else. They are nontheless required for everyones success - so you better treat them well :) That is a different approach from games where the point is that everyone has their unique mechanics and is supposed to have "fair play equal grounds". That doesn't exist here. Your government hopefully establishes what you will perceive as fair play.
Ultimately the term "nerf" needs a relation basis for judgement. And without knowing your personal one, it's difficult to say anything. Like what got "worse"? And is that actually worse?
devtrackers.gg