The 'Changes for Balance' Thread

This is a true topic from minority.

 

 

"It failed to provide any challenge no matter whom you fight."

Firstly that was not my sentence. I just added my personal impression to the discussion. Now if you take that "any" very literary, it is indeed a hyperbolic statement. But this is a forum discussion, not a juristic text. People talk that way, you know. And dying three times on PotD is not really what I would call challenge. But as you insist, here is my non-hyperbolic attempt:

 

In my experience as a self defined average player the game clearly failed to provide an appropriate challenge on the difficulty settings normal and above, apart from very few fights, given the assumption, that players an all difficulty levels but story mode are expected to fail from time to time.

 

You can quote that, nitpicker.

Dude. *HE* admitted that it was in fact extreme hyperbole and then proceeded to rephrase with more realistic statements. So...**** you, basically? Like...you don't matter in that conversation. That was an example of hyperbolic statements, not something *being attributed to you*. And my point was, and remains, that hyperbole to an extreme degree creates lack of meaning because at a certain point it ceases to connect with the reality of the situation. Not, like.."nitpicking". Your half-assed attempt to be annoyingly specific as a joke at my expense to create the impression that I'm some kind of obsessively specific jackass just makes me concerned about your comprehension.

 

Are you okay? Like...I'm worried about you. Your executive function doesn't seem to be working well.

If you'd just left out the personal attacks (especially the silly last part done in master guardian style) you'd have achieved more. Without you'd have a clear point I could agree to - now that is heavily obscured by an impression that you might have problems with anger management or something.

 

Suppose the game launched at 1.1, you got it immediately, and picked Arcane Knight. 30 hours in you realize that beyond being just initially weak, it is never going to get any stronger. You start a new game and pick a fighter, and he just pounds through everything your Arcane Knight struggled with, and you just sunk your first 30 hours into a dead end.

 

Would you then still be here proclaiming that games should not be overhauled post launch? That they should be left in an unbalanced state. That it is your responsibility to break out the modding tools to make Arcane Knight a powerful and enjoyable class? Suppose Obsidian then released 1.2 as first post launch patch, and now you can load your abandoned save and the Arcane Knight is a powerhouse. You'd still come storming in here to ask what the hell people are thinking, overhauling post launch?

 

Maybe Obsidian got overzealous and left Arcane Knight in the trenches, but since they a) have balance as a goal, and b) they are still balancing, that can still be redeemed.

 

You make some very good points. But you don't take into consideration that I didn't actually go in blind. Before I started the game, I researched the class, read up on abilities, theorycrafted a build. Then it was just a matter of execution in-game, and it worked exactly as great as I thought it would. But all of that is gone now.

 

I'm not saying Arcane Knight is garbage class. To be fair, it probably isn't, I mean come on it's Pala and Wizard. However, MINE is pretty damn poop because the playstyle that I was going for when I created him is no longer possible. Like I've stated, yeah I can respec and salvage the run, but I'll be stuck with a very bad subclass for the new style of gameplay that I'll have to incorporate (due to, for example, not having access to some spells).

 

Coming back to a saved game after a character suddenly becomes strong again sounds good.. but not the most realistic. If you abandon a game for any reason, and move on to play other games, there is a high chance that you will not even hear about a new patch for the game you abandoned. And even if you do, to continue the run after like... half a year, it would be a challenge to even remember what was going on in game, and at that point it would probably make more sense just to restart. Of course this is all extremely subjective, but I'm confident that I'm not the only player with such approach.

 

Also, if you can manage to plow through some really bad posts, you can find that some other people got borked way harder than I did. Imagine you're playing Ranger/Monk and suddenly Monk's main buff no longer works with your weapon, and you HAVE to start playing melee (which was not your goal at all at character creation) to be somewhat effective. That's like a kick in the nuts.

 

 

Suppose the game launched at 1.1, you got it immediately, and picked Arcane Knight. 30 hours in you realize that beyond being just initially weak, it is never going to get any stronger. You start a new game and pick a fighter, and he just pounds through everything your Arcane Knight struggled with, and you just sunk your first 30 hours into a dead end.

 

Would you then still be here proclaiming that games should not be overhauled post launch? That they should be left in an unbalanced state. That it is your responsibility to break out the modding tools to make Arcane Knight a powerful and enjoyable class? Suppose Obsidian then released 1.2 as first post launch patch, and now you can load your abandoned save and the Arcane Knight is a powerhouse. You'd still come storming in here to ask what the hell people are thinking, overhauling post launch?

 

Maybe Obsidian got overzealous and left Arcane Knight in the trenches, but since they a) have balance as a goal, and b) they are still balancing, that can still be redeemed.

 

You make some very good points. But you don't take into consideration that I didn't actually go in blind. Before I started the game, I researched the class, read up on abilities, theorycrafted a build. Then it was just a matter of execution in-game, and it worked exactly as great as I thought it would. But all of that is gone now.

 

I'm not saying Arcane Knight is garbage class. To be fair, it probably isn't, I mean come on it's Pala and Wizard. However, MINE is pretty damn poop because the playstyle that I was going for when I created him is no longer possible. Like I've stated, yeah I can respec and salvage the run, but I'll be stuck with a very bad subclass for the new style of gameplay that I'll have to incorporate (due to, for example, not having access to some spells).

 

Coming back to a saved game after a character suddenly becomes strong again sounds good.. but not the most realistic. If you abandon a game for any reason, and move on to play other games, there is a high chance that you will not even hear about a new patch for the game you abandoned. And even if you do, to continue the run after like... half a year, it would be a challenge to even remember what was going on in game, and at that point it would probably make more sense just to restart. Of course this is all extremely subjective, but I'm confident that I'm not the only player with such approach.

 

Also, if you can manage to plow through some really bad posts, you can find that some other people got borked way harder than I did. Imagine you're playing Ranger/Monk and suddenly Monk's main buff no longer works with your weapon, and you HAVE to start playing melee (which was not your goal at all at character creation) to be somewhat effective. That's like a kick in the nuts.

Just being curious. What was ur intended build idea behind your Arcane Knight? Because Paladin/Wizard are two classes who weren't changed in any significant ways iirc?

 

Archraven had a good example of a build idea who got ruined because of the change when swift flurry suddenly was changed to melee only. Here I can completely see the annoyance of this change if he/she was building a ranged crit build.

 

Were u going to be abusing the immortality in some way? Or were u stacking defenses and the change to FoC and the change to POTD made u a lot more squishy? I apologize if you already explained this but this thread is very long. I am just curious.

 

Like...you don't matter in that conversation.

 

Then why did you quote me? Why do you attack me, even after I said, I've enough of this discussion?

 

 

be annoyingly specific as a joke

 

That was no joke. First you complain about inaccurate statements, start a metadiscussion about rethorics, then you get an accurate one (because you insisted) and in response claim it was a joke and get personal.

 

You either try to avoid real discussion, are attempting to get this discussion shut or you are the one, whom we should worry about.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Lord_Mord

 

Just being curious. What was ur intended build idea behind your Arcane Knight? Because Paladin/Wizard are two classes who weren't changed in any significant ways iirc?

 

Archraven had a good example of a build idea who got ruined because of the change when swift flurry suddenly was changed to melee only. Here I can completely see the annoyance of this change if he/she was building a ranged crit build.

 

Were u going to be abusing the immortality in some way? Or were u stacking defenses and the change to FoC and the change to POTD made u a lot more squishy? I apologize if you already explained this but this thread is very long. I am just curious.

 

Bleak Walker/Evoker. The gameplay was all about buffing up, blowing a missile load, and cleaning up with FoD.

 

Wizard missile damage is now crap. My PL got artificially reduced by nerfs to items. Evoker makes little sense for the build now, it's actually hindering instead. FoD damage and Bleak Walker bonus were also lowered.

 

Nerfs to Wizard defensive spells and Paladin disposition passive were actually very major. This, coupled with buffed monster stats, resulted in the character being very squishy.

 

A durable character with great damage turned into a glass toothpick.

Lets please keep the discussion focused on the topic and not each other.

 

This good fellow talks sense.  He's also is a moderator telling everyone to knock off the attempts to psychoanalyze each others posts.    You want to make an argument, make it about the issues and arguments of another poster not the poster themselves, the poster's reasons for posting, the poster's childhood trauma that clearly motivates them to post, etc.

 

 

Just being curious. What was ur intended build idea behind your Arcane Knight? Because Paladin/Wizard are two classes who weren't changed in any significant ways iirc?

 

Archraven had a good example of a build idea who got ruined because of the change when swift flurry suddenly was changed to melee only. Here I can completely see the annoyance of this change if he/she was building a ranged crit build.

 

Were u going to be abusing the immortality in some way? Or were u stacking defenses and the change to FoC and the change to POTD made u a lot more squishy? I apologize if you already explained this but this thread is very long. I am just curious.

 

Bleak Walker/Evoker. The gameplay was all about buffing up, blowing a missile load, and cleaning up with FoD.

 

Wizard missile damage is now crap. My PL got artificially reduced by nerfs to items. Evoker makes little sense for the build now, it's actually hindering instead. FoD damage and Bleak Walker bonus were also lowered.

 

Nerfs to Wizard defensive spells and Paladin disposition passive were actually very major. This, coupled with buffed monster stats, resulted in the character being very squishy.

 

A durable character with great damage turned into a glass toothpick.

 

 

Were you going solo PotD?

 

The loss of a few, what like two or maybe three, powerlevels would have reduced damage of spells some but it'd still work. Also a few percentage reduction in damage adders just means one or two additional swings, if that..

 

A group of five would spend a little more time in combat but high level is pretty much a roflstomp anyway.

 

It seems like the whole problem is that instead of one cast of a spell, and a few FoD it went to two or maybe even three casts of a spell, a few FoD and a few autoattacks with maybe a heal or two needed to tank the damage. Just doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on.

 

Were you going solo PotD?

 

The loss of a few, what like two or maybe three, powerlevels would have reduced damage of spells some but it'd still work. Also a few percentage reduction in damage adders just means one or two additional swings, if that..

 

A group of five would spend a little more time in combat but high level is pretty much a roflstomp anyway.

 

It seems like the whole problem is that instead of one cast of a spell, and a few FoD it went to two or maybe even three casts of a spell, a few FoD and a few autoattacks with maybe a heal or two needed to tank the damage. Just doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on.

 

Not solo, no. I had some storyline companions with me running on AI scripts. Mostly took them with me for story purpose lol. It only looks like no big deal on paper. In practice, the character is simply bad. When damage becomes lower and enemies suddenly gain more armor to penetrate, bad things happen.

 

It really doesn't matter at this point. This topic was not created so that I could complain about my current character. To not repeat myself too much.. if I - or anyone else, really - start a new game, same thing will probably happen. I get to play something cool, and then bam, nerfs. This greatly discourages me from playing at all.

You should play Blood Bowl. And come back to the game once all 3 expansions are out. You will, then, probably, find some other fun ideas of characters that work, are balanced, along with a better game overall. Since Pillars is not Skyrim, patches are inevitable along the way. If it bothers you, just wait.

 

Though i guess everyone got your point by now. And i don't think anyone is trying to deny that it may, indeed, be a bother, depending on the person and the specifics. Since many people (me included) consider that patch balances are inevitable for such a complex game, there is not much to argue about the matter anymore: Obsidian certainly feels the same. There is no point anymore in arguing about whether patches are a good thing or not; either. They will come anyway. For sure. Only, just think of what you really want to do yourself now.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Abel

I want to argue that nerfing the abilities is detrimental to the game.

 

I will try to be clear and short and give examples when needed.

 

This is a reaction to the last patch (1.1.0.0035) which, in my opinion, is going in the wrong direction.

 

Let it be clear that I speak of abilities in general including spells and active skills but also passive abilities and modals.

 

What I found fun in the battle of this game is that a well placed abilities can win you a fight. I like to have to rethink my strategies to have to win battle. This is enabled by strong abilities that can change the course of a fight.

 

Nerfing abilities raise the relative strength of the plain attack. In my opinion that changes the game more toward a boring “I hit you, you hit me until the dude with the strongest stat win”.

 

Making the game harder can be achieved without nerf to the abilities. As an extreme examples, consider the following: instead of nerfing Swift Flurry what about putting a handful of angry blunderbuss wielding Monk/Berseker to every fight ? Or a couple of meteor shower casting mage ? This would make the game harder.

 

More seriously I believe making the game harder and more interesting would require an overall of the IA and the builds they use. And of course better abilities usage. But nerfing the abilities does not necessarily make the game harder.

 

The IA also use abilities. Reducing their effectiveness can arguably makes the game easier. This is because the face value of an abilities is more important to the IA while the player will adapt the usage of the ability. For example the nerf to the duration of arcane veil make it so that it is more important to use the ability at the right time. A thing the IA is not really good at while the player will adapt its behavior.

 

Note that I do not think that the meteor shower or the swift flurry did not deserve a nerf. I am ok with a few particular change to hinder a very strong combo. It is more the general nerf to just about everything that is deemed strong that I fear.

 

What do you think ?

 

Most importantly have fun and have a good day !

I would say that the point of nerfing specific abilities isn't necessarily / only to make the game harder. Primarily, I should think, it is to balance the abilities against each other (and same for items, etc.). In which case nerfing is indeed the most practical strategy, since the alternative would be to make all other abilities (or at least some relevant subset) stronger. Not that I necessarily agree with all the changes they made, but I do agree with the overall aim (as I understand it) of doing so. 

 

Certainly though, improvements and more variation in AI and the builds used by enemies would definitely be a good thing as well. In part to make the game harder, where needed, but in part also simply to make it more varied. 

Well i would agree that when i first played Pilars , i had kind of the feeling that fights were about weak exchanges of slaps:p. Spells were especially so. You had this wonderfull spell you could use twice a day, that would lower, let's say, will of the opponent by 5 for 3 seconds... \o/ By the time you cast your willed based spell to take advantage of the first one, the effect already ended.

 

BG had spells that could kill instanly several opponents (or your whole team) if you failed a save throw. Even the level 1 orb spell could petrify the target once caster is lvl 12. That was bad ass. Needed to reload quite often in the end. But i felt that everything was more significant. While it's true that if the IA could cast successfully an immobilize spell on 3 of your party members, you were pretty much doomed (since spell duration were so long, unles you prepared the right spells with one priest, which i always did actually (and it's the reason i loved priests so much while i dislike them in Pillars)). I kind of liked the idea that every one of the spell i memorized could influence things greatly. I never had this feeling in Pillars. With anything. This game combat is more like a war of attrition, often needing you to hit a mob countless times with your crappy flail to achieve anything. I don't especially like it, and it's not even rewarding since no XP and crappy loots are the rule.But it's just one of the many reasons i never finished the game. And it is not one of my worst gripes (still looking at you, magical healing nap and Might attribute).

Edited June 14, 2018 by Abel

 

BG had spells that could kill instanly several opponents (or your whole team) if you failed a save throw.

 

Yeah, that was fun. You're nearly at the end of a 15min fight, suddenly your opponent casts a bull**** spell and you have to reload.

 

 

BG had spells that could kill instanly several opponents (or your whole team) if you failed a save throw.

 

Yeah, that was fun. You're nearly at the end of a 15min fight, suddenly your opponent casts a bull**** spell and you have to reload.

 

 

Yeah, i was always fine with this. Though, i'm not quite sure any fights would last this long, aside from very important ones, like the one against Irenicus. Being able to OS a kobold on a crit was ok, too. Did not need to spend 3 minutes spaming auto attack like it is against xaurips. Matter of taste, certainly.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Abel

I definitely agree with the notion of "war of attrition". I can't really complain with the game direction since I didn't participate in the beta phase of Deadfire but I am quite puzzled with the removal of the Endurance design. In whatever state PoE1 was in, the concept of Health barring things like Vital Essence helped to keep encounters "contained". There is a sense that fights can't really go on indefinitely as Health can run out (and it did in some encounters for me)

 

In Deadfire, perpetual healing plus the now increased DR of enemies / increased numbers made it feel more of a slogfest. And I feel that any strategies that can speed things up (which will probably be considered OP) will likely be a target for nerfs in further patches.

Edited June 14, 2018 by mosspit

 

Though, i'm not quite sure any fights would last this long, aside from very important ones, like the one against Irenicus.

 

Fully modded game with SCS had lots of tough fights. Maybe I'm a bad player, but some of them took me very long, or at least felt like they did. A fight that I remember that was part of the original game was of course Kangaxx. That took always very long and I had to reload a lot.

 

 

Though, i'm not quite sure any fights would last this long, aside from very important ones, like the one against Irenicus.

 

Fully modded game with SCS had lots of tough fights. Maybe I'm a bad player, but some of them took me very long, or at least felt like they did. A fight that I remember that was part of the original game was of course Kangaxx. That took always very long and I had to reload a lot.

 

That's because there's one item in the game that makes it really easy to survive for some time (Scroll of Protection from Magic), and only 2 or three weapons that could hit him.

Without the Scroll, it was possible, but highly unlikely to defeat Kangaxx. With the Scroll, the fight was over in < 30s.

That's because there's one item in the game that makes it really easy to survive for some time (Scroll of Protection from Magic), and only 2 or three weapons that could hit him.

 

Without the Scroll, it was possible, but highly unlikely to defeat Kangaxx. With the Scroll, the fight was over in < 30s.

 

You could use as many as you want if you equipped the scroll and casted Simalucrum. Another way was to use Protection from Undead scroll; Kangaxx wouldn't even react to your presence while you beat him up. Or you could use the line-of-sight trick (takes a while but works). Or instakill him with upgraded Mace of Disruption. Or pre-trap his spawn point.

 

And despite all that, there were many ways to beat him in a "legit" way and the fight surely did not take 15 minutes. It's easy for some, and for others - not really, because as with every game, actual difficulty of a fight is completely subjective.

 

Of course I'm talking about a normal fight here, not modded, because players shouldn't have to use mods, right?

 

 

 

Though, i'm not quite sure any fights would last this long, aside from very important ones, like the one against Irenicus.

 

Fully modded game with SCS had lots of tough fights. Maybe I'm a bad player, but some of them took me very long, or at least felt like they did. A fight that I remember that was part of the original game was of course Kangaxx. That took always very long and I had to reload a lot.

 

That's because there's one item in the game that makes it really easy to survive for some time (Scroll of Protection from Magic), and only 2 or three weapons that could hit him.

Without the Scroll, it was possible, but highly unlikely to defeat Kangaxx. With the Scroll, the fight was over in < 30s.

 

 

No, it was very possible and consistent by multiple means - http://www.baldurdash.org/kangaxx.html - my favorite being enraging and hasting berserker. 

 

Personally, I have never used Scroll of Protection, on Kangaxx or anyone else simply because it was too easy. In this game, Scroll of Protection would not live to see patch 1.1 because of .. balance.

More like in this game you don't really need scrolls anyway.

More like in this game even with the Scroll on one would get Grazed, well, unless one would stack Deflection .. oh wait wtf?! 

 

You could use as many as you want if you equipped the scroll and casted Simalucrum. Another way was to use Protection from Undead scroll; Kangaxx wouldn't even react to your presence while you beat him up. Or you could use the line-of-sight trick (takes a while but works). Or instakill him with upgraded Mace of Disruption. Or pre-trap his spawn point.

 

And despite all that, there were many ways to beat him in a "legit" way and the fight surely did not take 15 minutes. It's easy for some, and for others - not really, because as with every game, actual difficulty of a fight is completely subjective.

 

By that time I had little to no metaknowledge of the game. I set up a few traps than tried to beat him with whatever I had. I ran around in the room, tried to not getting trapped in the other dimension, or whatever it was he did to let your companions disappear, trying to get his attention to summoned creatures. I remember one time, I guess it was the first time, when I had one weapon that could hit him, but did little damage. That fight lasted forever, but I finally got him.

 

 

 

Of course I'm talking about a normal fight here, not modded, because players shouldn't have to use mods, right?

 

I see what you did there. Players shouldn't have to use mods to bring the game to a normal state. Mods for making it super ****ing hard or twice as big are of course OK. Also that players shouldn't have to use mods does not mean, that it's never necessary. I'm definitely not one of those that claim that BG was a perfect game.

So for some reason people around here feel that a purely single player game with NO competitive part requires constant rebalancing. My question is: WHY?

 

Unless members of this forums make a majority of the playerbase (which is obviously not likely), the only thing you're doing by these changes is make other players annoyed. There is absolutely nothing fun in having to restart the game because a dumb patch just nerfed your fun character to the point of being uplayable. Also, when a player returns after DLC and wants to continue his old save, then realizes that there was a patch along the way that made his character garbage, what makes you think he will restart and not abandon the game completely? How could you possibly think that effing up someone's playthrough is a good idea to keep them playing?

 

Do you really not see how pointless it is to do a Blizzard-style overhauls to a single player game? Having an "overpowered" character does not affect anyone's game, only YOURS, and you're free to play anything else if you're bored. If the player wants to rebalance the game himself with mods: sure, why not? Let them. Baldur's Gate did. And it was fine, because only people who wanted these changes got them, they weren't forced down their throat because a random Joe on official forum cries that the game is too easy for him.

 

So I ask again: what is there to gain by this? Flexing about achievements perhaps? Hey, did you know that mods do not disable achievements and you can mod yourself to be a god anyway?

 

In short.. fixing obvious bugs is great. Having mod support, so that players can modify the game to their own needs, is also great. But doing these horrible rebalance changes to a game with zero competitive play is just a **** move.

 

You sound bad, only enjoy (and can handle) being OP and being able to faceroll everything.

 

And you think this is the majority? 

 

You're deluded. The like ratio between your original post and the very second comment against it, says it better than any of us individually could.

 

Stick to easy game difficulty, while the rest of us keep working on getting this game made properly and getting it to live up to its full potential.

 

You get your faceroll OP, where it belongs (easy difficulty) we get actual depth and challenge. Everyone wins.

 

Instead of trying to keep the game dumbed down and broken to suit your basic level only.

Edited June 15, 2018 by whiskiz

This whole thread is pretty silly. The entire point of Path of the Damned, and Veteran to a lesser extent, is to provide the player with a tactical challenge, to put his skills and character builds to the test. The game failed to deliver that at launch, and was instead a breeze, so now the developers are addressing that issue. I doubt they are "changing the game for the pleasure of minority" as I don't think many people would object to free, high-effort post-release development such as this. 

I also never understood this infatuation with some of the broken and poorly balanced aspects of BG2. Sure, you could finish the whole game by spamming cloudkill and closing the door to the room, but where's the fun in that? To me—and probably anyone who picks Path of the Damned—games are fun when they're challenging, and stop being fun as soon as they're not. Blowing stuff up effortlessly is fun on the first time but gets old by the third. For those who aren't even seeking particularly challenging combat, there're the Classic, Relaxed, and Story difficulties.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Multihog