Why POE II became unplayable for me

[Boeroer]

making them [games] unplayable

now it [cipher] feels absolutely nerfed and piece of... ****

not some garbage [character]

[...]zillions of useless abilities[...]

Having tonnes of useless abilities[...]

Boeroer,

First I want tell you misunderstood me - I never said any spell/skill were made totally useless.

 

Errr sure, if you think so... i mean correct: you didn't say "totally".

 

You use a lot of rather ridiculous hyperbole though - which makes it hard to take your criticism seriously. You also refuse to name any example, making it hard for me and others to judge if your complaints are somewhat justified of if you maybe just didn't understand how something works or whatevr reason there may be. As some other users pointed out: There was a difficulty adjustment for Deadfire that made the game significantly harder. So it might also be that you feel that your char is gimped now even though nothing about his stats and abilites changed.

 

Also now you are deviating from nerfs to badly explained game rules, difficulty and complexity. This is a totally different topic. If you think the game is too difficult and fights take too long you can lower the difficulty - as a player. But you can't do anything if the balancing is totally off and some abilites are too good (or too bad). You can just avoid them which narrows your choices significantly.

 

I agree that the explanations of game mechanics are bad - but that has nothing to do with your initial topic so maybe we shouldn't open that box now just to stay focused on nerfs and balancing.

 

I gave you a link to Josh Sawyers Tumbler where he explains why he balances and why he will continue to do so. It doesn't sound like you read that.

It actually answers some of your questions - first handedly from the designer.

 

You will have to accept that there's different tastes and reasons why players play games - also CRPGs. You don't seem to belong to the group of players that Josh Sawyers design philosophy is targeting. But just because you don't like it doesn't make the game ****ty, abilites "useless" (not totally useless mind you ) or balancing a bad thing. As you can see there are enough people here who like balancing. It's just not your thing.

 

We can objectively discuss if the implementation of nerfs reaches Josh Sawyers design goal or the goals of balaning in general. Maybe the nerfs are too harsh, maybe the buffs are not enough. I don't think so - but I'm willing to discuss actual nerfs and if they are indeed too harsh - or not.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Boeroer

[Makumba666]

I'll be damned, there are some people whom you can never explain anything, because they do not listen. From very beginning this topic was about one thing "why you change game rules?". That was and is main topic. Everything else - nerfs of spells etc. etc. are examples. Main problem is not nerf, not difficulty or any other bull**** - main problem is inconsistency of game rules. I can spend time (hours may be) on examining what is new in Visual Studio, or 3ds max, but not in some game. Is it damned OS? Can you just leave everything as it was on initial release (except correcting bugs apparently)? Obsidian can not - it constantly changes rules and character build that was viable for version 1.0 are piece of **** in version 4.1! 

THATS the problem. This is not the same game. It has same name, but plays absolutely differently and you have to use different abilities /skills you were using in version 1 to make strong character. Thats what this topic is about "DONT CHANGE GAME RULES!". But as far as I can understand this is useless, because many Obsidian funs like the way they rape corpse of released game. I think this topic is useless - better I find other games, that do not change rules with every release of new DLC.

Bye everybody.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Makumba666

[Gromnir]

I'll be damned, there are some people whom you can never explain anything, because they do not listen. From very beginning this topic was about one thing "why you change game rules?". That was and is main topic. Everything else - nerfs of spells etc. etc. are examples. Main problem is not nerf, not difficulty or any other bull**** - main problem is inconsistency of game rules. I can spend time (hours may be) on examining what is new in Visual Studio, or 3ds max, but not in some game. Is it damned OS? Can you just leave everything as it was on initial release (except correcting bugs apparently)? Obsidian can not - it constantly changes rules and character build that was viable for version 1.0 are piece of **** in version 4.1! 

THATS the problem. This is not the same game. It has same name, but plays absolutely differently and you have to use different abilities /skills you were using in version 1 to make strong character. Thats what this topic is about "DONT CHANGE GAME RULES!". But as far as I can understand this is useless, because many Obsidian funs like the way they rape corpse of released game. I think this topic is useless - better I find other games, that do not change rules with every release of new DLC.

Bye everybody.

you said inconsistency is bad w/o ever showing how and why such inconsistency is bad.  your argument had no analysis.  all you got is feelings and a conclusion.

 

this started specific with your concerns 'bout deadfire cipher, so take your Rule 'bout inconsistency being bad, and apply it to cipher changes made by obsidian.  show us how the changes were bad and why those changes were bad. equal important, show how the bad changes resulted in cipher becoming bad, 'cause as has been pointed out, the cipher received buffs as well and would be unfair to compare pre nerf cipher w/o considering post buff cipher if you are establishing how the nerfs resulted in the cipher becoming trash-worthy. analysis.  w/o analysis, boeroer and others is correct 'bout analogizing your post/thread to p00p hurling.

 

help Gromnir, help you.

 

help obsidian, help you.

 

w/o the analysis, there is nothing for obsidian to fix now and no reason to fix in future games.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Makumba666]

Gronmir,

How is it bad? You need proof? Suppose I started playing chess with a friend and now he says we are playing domino. What would you say, is it bad? 

In RPG games there may be hundreds of skills or spells and each of them may be strong or weak or useless. When you make a game you make some rules set. Why for example fireball does X damage, why not Y? Because developers decided so. Of course they had some arguments to do so.

Now another developer comes and says - no, fireball must do not X damage, not Y  - it must do damage Z. Of course you understand, that will change fireball value either increase it or decrease.  And it means players that were ignoring fireball, considering it too weak will now add it to their build, or remove if it was nerfed. And more skills/abilities/spells you change more changes of builds have to be made. Finally all those changes turn game into something new. Compare 1.0 and 4.1 - they are totally different games now.

Thats what I oppose. Why? If you wanna change everything create a new game, not rape already released one!  And to my knowledge the only company that does it is Obsidian. I will avoid Obsidian games in the future at any cost. Thats why!

Edited April 16, 2019 by Makumba666

[Gromnir]

Gronmir,

How is it bad? You need proof? Suppose I started playing a chess with a friend and now he says we are playing domino. What would you say, is it bad? 

In RPG games there may be hundreds of skills or spells and each of them may be strong or weak or useless. When you make a game you make some rules set. Why for example fireball does X damage, why not Y? Because developers decided so. Of course they had some arguments to do so.

Now another developer comes and says - no, fireball must do not X damage, not Y  - it must do damage Z. Of course you understand, that will change fireball value either increase it or decrease.  And it means players that were ignoring fireball, considering it too weak will now add it to their build, or remove if it was nerfed. And more skills/abilities/spells you change more changes of builds have to be made. Finally all those changes turn game into something new. Compare 1.0 and 4.1 - they are totally different games now.

Thats what I oppose. Why? If you wanna change everything create new game, not rape already released one! And only company that does it is Obsidian. I will avoid Obsidian games in future at any cost. Thats why!

changes may improve as well as harm.  every year, the rules committee for football changes rules and those changes is neither inherent good or bad.  were adding the forward pass good?  we would argue adding a rule which prevents horse collar tackling (grabbing the player's shoulder pads at the helmet from behind) were a good rule change as it dramatic improved player safety and concussion statistics, while poor kept at the time, were showing a decrease in such injuries following the change.  the rule did not dramatic change offensive or defensive output when one looks at statistics for the year o' implementation, but player safety improved.  less injured players means better players is more consistent on field and overall quality o' the game improves.  call it a win.

 

rules changes, in any game, may be good or bad.  cannot conclude good or bad w/o analysis o' some kind.

 

so give us analysis which supports your conclusion.  nerfs rendered cipher bad, yes?  so show us.  should be ez to show us if were such a dramatic shift. what specific nerfs made cipher bad?  how did those changes decrease usefulness o' cipher and were cipher made worse overall when one considers buffs which enhanced usefulness? is possible you feel opposite: buffs hurt, and nerfs helped... or nerfs and buffs both hurt the class overall. regardless, to be meaningful criticism, show how and explain why those specific changes harmed the class and the game.

 

complex games tend to evolve.  is often good reasons for altering rules o' complex games.  rules may be unintended self contradictory.  rules may unduly hinder a certain style o' play unanticipated by the developer. etc. 

 

boeroer mentioned checking josh's feedback on balancing crpgs and is worth a gander.  if you are trying to convince obsidian that changes to rules is fundamental bad, then you should probably know why obsidian is believing rule changes after release may be positives. after reading, you may argue specific tailored responses rather than making generalizations. if you are not gonna do analysis for cipher, which considerable undercuts your argument strength, at least tailor your critique to respond to obsidian pov on balance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am honest trying to help you.  have listened to developers over the years and obsidian specific since before they were obsidian.  if you are gonna convince them they is doing wrong, then you gotta offer analysis.   general impressions and feelings o' perceived failure based on general theory o' applicability is gonna get you no response or the posting equivalent o' a dismissive eye-roll.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Gromnir

[thelee]

Gronmir,

How is it bad? You need proof? Suppose I started playing a chess with a friend and now he says we are playing domino. What would you say, is it bad? 

In RPG games there may be hundreds of skills or spells and each of them may be strong or weak or useless. When you make a game you make some rules set. Why for example fireball does X damage, why not Y? Because developers decided so. Of course they had some arguments to do so.

Now another developer comes and says - no, fireball must do not X damage, not Y  - it must do damage Z. Of course you understand, that will change fireball value either increase it or decrease.  And it means players that were ignoring fireball, considering it too weak will now add it to their build, or remove if it was nerfed. And more skills/abilities/spells you change more changes of builds have to be made. Finally all those changes turn game into something new. Compare 1.0 and 4.1 - they are totally different games now.

Thats what I oppose. Why? If you wanna change everything create new game, not rape already released one! And only company that does it is Obsidian. I will avoid Obsidian games in future at any cost. Thats why!

chess is a funny example because chess *has* changed many times over the course of history - it would probably be unrecognizable today compared to when it was first played. it just happens to have been tuned and balanced in an era where the fastest way to communicate was via horse (if you're rich, walking/trudging for everyone else), basic arithmetic literacy (not to mention normal literacy) was lacking, and really lots of people were a little too busy with subsistence farming to really spend much time thinking about games. chess is pretty complicated, but now we have computers, spreadsheets, economies so productive that people can have entire careers devoted to thinking about games as opposed to harvesting potatoes or wheat, not to mention the fact that those games are now almost arbitrarily more complex than chess. So yes, games are going to iterate a lot more frequently.

 

can understand the annoyance of having to keep up with the changing parameters of a game, but am honestly having a hard time thinking of reasonably sized modern-day games that *aren't* tuned periodically throughout their lifetime, sometimes dramatically. I can open up my steam library, ubisoft library, blizzard library, whatever and every single game in them (even single-player) has pretty much received some sort of tuning patches. i can only assume makumbu666 is really specifically upset about some favored ability having been changed or something, and it's being expressed in a generalized vent/rant.

 

(edit: ok, Thumper in my steam library hasn't received any tuning patches, but am not sure that is "reasonably sized")

Edited April 16, 2019 by thelee

[Makumba666]

Gronmir,

Please lets stick to truth. Yes, football rules change too from time to time, but thanks god not every year and changes are not game changers, just some details to improve game. compared to all football ruleset changes are about tenth of percent - no more. 

What we have here? Game-changer changes and with every DLC. Tactics that were viable in the past do not work anymore. What the hell is this if not gamer changer? If you do not believe me, here on this forum are some character builds... try them. Changes are so significant that old builds do not work anymore - i.e. they are ineffective and you should use them if you want your character be some below average lammer. How so?

Why other games do not change rules? Generally speaking when other companies release DLCs they add (!!!) to existing set of rules (new abilities and skills) instead of modifying old ones. Of course they correct bugs, but that is different matter. Obsidian acts in different way: if somebody whines on forum some class is too strong, or "my god, this ability is too much fun to use", they add this to their todo list and in next patch ability is dramatically nerfed. Some may say they are doing well by listening customers, but I think this is worst thing they can do. Somebody finds some ability too strong? - let him use mod that nerfs it, if he wishes. And when you listen forums there is thousand opinions and you make thousand changes with every DLC. And at some point your new rule-set is absolutely different than it was initially. I loved POE 2, loved game it was... but this one - I don't know what is it. It is new game - cheap way making new games. I personally hate this way and I think there are many people like me.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Makumba666

[thelee]

Obsidian acts in different way: if somebody whines on forum some class is too strong, or "my god, this ability is too much fun to use", they add this to their todo list and in next patch ability is dramatically nerfed.

I highly doubt Obsidian acts as a democracy and just goes with whatever people are saying. There a whole bunch of game design philosophies (esp w.r.t. balancing), and some people on the forums happen to share similar philosophies with JE Sawyer and co, and just happen to make matching observations. That's a pretty far cry from "X user on the forums complained about an ability, better bring out the nerfhammer"

Edited April 16, 2019 by thelee

[MaxQuest]

I'll be damned, there are some people whom you can never explain anything, because they do not listen.

Well, explanation is a set of truthful statements that clarify something.

 

Meanwhile you state these:

 

1). "This topic is about "rebalancing" games- i.e. making them unplayable."

2). "It seems Obsidian can not just stop and not ruin everything"

3). "For example Cipher - never actually was uber class in POE II, but now it feels absolutely nerfed and piece of... ****."

4). "why mess everything and turn good game into a piece of ***?"

5). "I think tinkering with already released games should be stopped, because it ruins everything."

6). "To my knowledge Obsidian is the only company that does it"

7). "game mechanic uses different formulas"

 

Which are false. And why should one listen to lies and substitution of notions?

 

From very beginning this topic was about one thing "why you change game rules?". That was and is main topic. Everything else - nerfs of spells etc. etc. are examples. Main problem is not nerf, not difficulty or any other bull**** - main problem is inconsistency of game rules.

Again substitution.

 

From what I've read, your problem is "the change of already set game values".

 

Imagine if there was some rule inconsistency in v1.0, and it was changed later and made consistent, which collaterally "ruined" your character build. What I mean is: you seem to dislike the change itself.

 

character build that was viable for version 1.0 are piece of **** in version 4.1!

Deadfire is unusual. Unusual in the sense that almost everything is viable here.

 

But yes, a character built in v1.0 around an ability X, might be really different and suboptimal in v4.0.

One of the notable examples would be: Charge. Which was changed from full-attacking all enemies in it's path to stunning them.

 

THATS the problem. This is not the same game. It has same name, but plays absolutely differently and you have to use different abilities /skills you were using in version 1 to make strong character.

It's indeed a problem, in the scenario when you create a party in v1.0, play a bit, and come back several months later to continue on a much more recent version.

 

On the other hand it's a boon. As you could experience the game back then. And you can get a new experience now.

It keeps the things fresh for those that make more than 1 run. Additionally, new-comers can find the game in a more polished/adjusted state.

 

Even through I usually dislike the nerfs, sometimes they are beneficial. For example a player would like to play as an archetype X; but during character creation he quickly spots how an archetype Y has a broken ability or interaction A. If A completely trumps whatever he can achieve with his X... it makes him sad as he has to decide between RP factor and gimping himself. This conflict causes dissatisfaction with the situation in particular and with the game in general.

 

Usually the solution would be to buff the abilities of archetype X to the level of that really efficient ability A. But if A is really brokingly good (e.g. like Charge was), it's easier to just nerf A, instead of buffing everything else (and getting into situation with 5s combat duration and one-shot fiesta). In either case: you just can't leave this stuff as is, because otherwise all the wide range of options and abilities available to player is narrowed to just a few strong-above-all-else ones.

 

Ideally the game would be balanced and perfect from the start. But due to it's complexity it's hard to foresee all interactions in advance.

 

This topic is about "rebalancing" games- i.e. making them unplayable. Why not leave them alone?

[...]

Can anybody explain why Obsidian is doing this? why mess everything and turn good game into a piece of ***?

Pretty much explained this in the response to previous quote.

 

Thats what this topic is about "DONT CHANGE GAME RULES!". But as far as I can understand this is useless, because many Obsidian funs like the way they rape corpse of released game.

Have you tried meditation?

 

Suppose I started playing chess with a friend and now he says we are playing domino. What would you say, is it bad?

Definitely. It would be even worse if he told that the game has transitioned into basketball. The chess pieces are not designed to be slammed on the ground.

 

The good thing is: Deadfire is still Deadfire. So your example would be more on point with: "Suppose I started playing [chess] with a friend and now he says we are playing [chess_with_adjusted_rules]".

 

Changing rules during the game without the agreement of both players is a bad sportsmanship. But thankfully, you can disable the updates, until you have finished your current playthrough. And generally speaking, continue playing the [chess]:

- without pawn promotion

- without the pawn ability to move 2 spaces, on their first move

- with bishops being able to move no more than 2 spaces away

- and with limited queens

Edited April 16, 2019 by MaxQuest

[Gromnir]

Gronmir,

Please lets stick to truth. Yes, football rules change too from time to time, but thanks god not every year and changes are not game changers, just some details to improve game. compared to all football ruleset changes are about tenth of percent - no more. 

What we have here? Game-changer changes and with every DLC. Tactics that were viable in the past do not work anymore. What the hell is this if not gamer changer? If you do not believe me, here on this forum are some character builds... try them. Changes are so significant that old builds do not work anymore - i.e. they are ineffective and you should use them if you want your character be some below average lammer. How so?

Why other games do not change rules? Generally speaking when other companies release DLCs they add (!!!) to existing set of rules (new abilities and skills) instead of modifying old ones. Of course they correct bugs, but that is different matter. Obsidian acts in different way: if somebody whines on forum some class is too strong, or "my god, this ability is too much fun to use", they add this to their todo list and in next patch ability is dramatically nerfed. Some may say they are doing well by listening customers, but I think this is worst thing they can do. Somebody finds some ability too strong? - let him use mod that nerfs it, if he wishes. And when you listen forums there is thousand opinions and you make thousand changes with every DLC. And at some point your new rule-set is absolutely different than it was initially. I loved POE 2, loved game it was... but this one - I don't know what is it. It is new game - cheap way making new games. I personally hate this way and I think there are many people like me.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/21/full-list-of-proposed-nfl-rules-bylaws-and-resolution-changes-for-2019/

 

rules were codified in 1876. were 8 changes last year, which is 'bout average.  after a century and a half, numerous changes is still being made every year.

 

and rather small change to extra point had a rather dramatic impact on many games last year.  literal game changers. 142 years later and game changing rules is still being implemented.

 

first rules book for the nfl: 19 pages

 

current rule book: 89 pages.

 

still no analysis.  why?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Makumba666]

thelee,

I don't know how they actually are making decision... I just supposed way that seems realistic for me. But despite why they are doing it, fact is what they are doing - i.e. changing everything in game. 

 

Max Quest,

And what you think "rebalancing" means except changing? Yes I hate changing games or "rebelancing" what you call it.  I call it cheating. And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did? To my knowledge there is none (I am not speaking about remastered or enhanced editions). Even enhanced BG or BG II do their best to keep all spells/skills as they were in original. Nothing is ideal and D&D ruleset had it's weak points too, but still developers kept everything intact.  Deadfire is not deadfire anymore - it is a mod, made by some guy, who loves hardcore game and spamming thousand useless abilities. I think this practice is unfair and any good game developer must be ashamed doing this.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Makumba666

[Makumba666]

Gronmir,

And one more thing - football is a sport, it is something ongoing. POE is a game, offline game that seems (at least they say) have final version. But it never ends. With each new DLC we get absolutely new rules. I hate when game does this - for me it is cheating.  Thats why I better play games that do not change rules.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Makumba666

[MaxQuest]

And what you think "rebalancing" means except changing?

Every balance change is a change.

Not every change is a balance change.

 

Hmm. How do you expect me to answer: "And what do you think 'walking' means except moving?"

 

Yes I hate changing games or "rebelancing" what you call it.

Fair enough.

You can love it or hate it. This is your right. These are your emotions.

 

I call it cheating.

Fair enough.

You can call an ape - banana. Just don't force it on others.

 

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

Blizzard.

 

Deadfire is not deadfire anymore - it is a mod, made by some guy, who loves hardcore game and spamming thousand useless abilities.

The release version and v1.1/1.2 indeed looked like being directed by different people in charge.

The first one strived for a more wow-effect.

While the second, trimmed a lot of stuff down, like in an MMORPG where every percent counts.

 

As for hardcore: the game on release was too easy on PotD. And additionally there was not so much difference between Normal and Veteran. Josh told us that they were very time constrained, and decided to focus on bug-fixing, with difficulty being adjused later, after release.

 

I think this practice is unfair and any good game developer must be ashamed doing this.

Edited April 16, 2019 by MaxQuest

[thelee]

Gronmir,

And one more thing - football is a sport, it is something ongoing. POE is a game, offline game that seems (at least they say) have final version. But it never ends. With each new DLC we get absolutely new rules.

sorry man, but this is objectively false. Deadfire's core rules have essentially never changed. Classes, abilities, and items have been tweaked, but they've generally all kept to their original vision, with few exceptions - pretty much what has really "broken" are arguably unintentionally powerful interactions that were not apparent to the devs when it was just them and their small QA team (the constant rejiggering of empower and brilliant is probably the main thing). The biggest change I can think of was the trickster, which underwent a pretty major transformation in order to be less niche-y.

 

Stuff like tuning paladin resource regen skills or reducing top-end item power level is more akin to baseball (in 2019) tweaking its rules to add a minimum number of batters a pitcher needs to face.

 

I hate when game does this - for me it is cheating. Thats why I better play games that do not change rules.

ok, dude. even tetris has changed its rules over time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it really just sounds like to me you had some favored ability or item in early deadfire and are mad that you can't use it and don't want to cop to it so you're just making a generalized rant that doesn't seem altogether consistent with how games tend to work in this day and age

Edited April 16, 2019 by thelee

[Gromnir]

Gronmir,

And one more thing - football is a sport, it is something ongoing. POE is a game, offline game that seems (at least they say) have final version. But it never ends. With each new DLC we get absolutely new rules. I hate when game does this - for me it is cheating.  Thats why I better play games that do not change rules.

irrelevant.  is both games.  haven't explained why is fundamental different. if obsidian could make money from deadfire after 142 years o' releasing the initial rules, do you believe they would reject doing so 'cause is not a sport?  obsidian has released dlcs, whether you hate or not, which necessarily required new balancing efforts based on obsidian balance notions. turn-based, ill-advised or not, also required balance efforts.  regardless o' whether you like ongoing, deadfire has been ongoing and future games will follow a similar progression just so long as is economic smarty to do so.

 

am perfect fine with obsidian reaching some kinda point of diminishing returns for rules improvements (you still have not responded to josh observations as to why continued balance in a sp game is a boon.  why?) and concluding their balance efforts, but both obsidian and Gromnir seem to be on the same page that the current iteration o' poe2 needs improvements. for example, while unlikely, we would love it if obsidian took our advice and made a few needed changes to priests to allow for greater flexibility in powha availability. 

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/99362-what-is-your-worst-single-class-in-deadfire/page-3?hl=%2Bpriests+%2Bgromnir&do=findComment&comment=2022103

 

is an 11 month old post. 'bout a year after release, and adding a vade mecum, prayer beads or medicine pouch trinket as kinda a poor-man's grimoire would still be a welcome change to fill a perceived current need. 

 

and please, do analysis o' your cipher complaint. w/o analysis, am not certain there is a point to this.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wormerine]

I'll be damned, there are some people whom you can never explain anything, because they do not listen. From very beginning this topic was about one thing "why you change game rules?"

Not quite. You suggest that game got worse after the updates - it didn't. I can understand frustration, when things that worked well for you don't work anymore - to some extend I experienced it myself, when reloading my first character to play DLCs. It is not something I found bad enough, though, to ruin my run or character concept (not being able to wipe out every encounter by spamming Amplified Wave is something I see as an improvement).

 

However, your criticism focused on Obsidian patching the game after launch and not them not ensuring the balance is accaptable before the release? Criticising the practice of "release now, fix later" is something I understand, however, advocating for game to remain unfixed, when glaring issues persist, is not.  

 

I am skewed in favour of Obsidian in this particular case as I am a backer, and I am more interested in following the game's developement and seeing it get as good as it can, I was not angry about issues in 1.0 - I was just interested in seeing those getting fixed. Still, even if I was a day 1 purchaser, I would complain that the games difficulty ranged from brainless to easy and that game doesn't engage player with its mechanics. 

 

I have some theories as to why Obsidian would plan their developement in the way they did, but I might be wrong so I will keep those to myself. I generally avoid playing most games until they reach GOTY state. Deadfire is getting there, with final patches being worked on. I wish they would find a more transparent way of releasing those titles. In some ways I feel that Deadfire 1.0 was an Early Access titles with lots of testing and patching conciously left to be done after launch, though it's difficult to explain a story-driven game releasing as Early Access. 

[thelee]

I have some theories as to why Obsidian would plan their developement in the way they did, but I might be wrong so I will keep those to myself. I generally avoid playing most games until they reach GOTY state. Deadfire is getting there, with final patches being worked on. I wish they would find a more transparent way of releasing those titles. In some ways I feel that Deadfire 1.0 was an Early Access titles with lots of testing and patching conciously left to be done after launch, though it's difficult to explain a story-driven game releasing as Early Access.

given that Deadfire was *so* quickly hit with a massive balancing patch soon after release, it really seems like they *had* to meet a release deadline even though they knew there were still a lot of things to fix. (they had to send out a version for 1.0 production while they were still internally doing the last tweaks)

 

it's easy for me to say since I don't work in the games industry with very fixed budgets and hard-drop deadlines, but it really seems like obsidian could have avoided a lot of grief if they had literally just waited a month for release.

Edited April 16, 2019 by thelee

[bringingyouthefuture]

I like the game - I haven't noticed any changes at all ... honest.  I don't play solo PoTD though so probably wouldn't.  I have been playing pretty consistent in my free time for most of the year since its release - I don't read the spoiler forum sections so I really have no idea about character builds (though it fascinates me).  I do know that PoTD got a lot more interesting with them upping the difficulty, but whether that was from character encounters vs buffing/nerfing I have no idea, I am guessing less to do with nerfing and more to do with the added enemies with more abilities in certain set encounters.  I know this isn't adding much to your issue, but honest I somewhat agree that something specific changed and you are reacting to it, as my experience with game is that it keeps getting better.

 

Also, I first played POE1 years after release and enjoyed every minute of it - so I am very happy they took the time to make it better.  POE2 was not very fun for me at release, but now it is much closer to the fun I had with POE1.  I would love them to keep making the game better for years to come if possible.

 

You argue that change is bad in the game.  I disagree, the changes have made the game better.  There is an old saying in - Expectation Are Resentments Waiting to Happen - now if that expectation was that my solo PoTD character can't get through the DLCs because the abilities change - I would say that is a valid resentment to have .... but that has nothing to do with the qaulity of the game.

[Manveru123]

 

 

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

Blizzard.

 

 

 

What game is that? Because if you mean Blizzard the company, they haven't released a single-player title in many, many years.

 

 

obsidian has released dlcs, whether you hate or not, which necessarily required new balancing efforts based on obsidian balance notions. turn-based, ill-advised or not, also required balance efforts.  

 

Barely anyone would complain if the changes made to Deadfire were caused by DLCs and the addition of turn-based mode. However, check how many huge balunz patches were released before we even got a single DLC.. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Manveru123

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

obsidian has released dlcs, whether you hate or not, which necessarily required new balancing efforts based on obsidian balance notions. turn-based, ill-advised or not, also required balance efforts.  

 

Barely anyone would complain if the changes made to Deadfire were caused by DLCs and the addition of turn-based mode. However, check how many huge balunz patches were released before we even got a single DLC.. 

 

makumba were making such complaints, which is how we got where we is.

 

regardless, and once again, the folks you gotta convince that balance is evuhl is obsidian developers.

 

https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/161302725596/balance-in-single-player-crpgs

 

additional, we would suggest very few complained 'bout obsidian indulging in pre dlc balance changes, seeing as how there were daily howls o' anguish on these boards 'bout how ez were potd and the s'posed ineffectual cipher as well as a host o' other concerns. am suspecting the complaint most voiced, if there were a consensus complaint, were that obsidan weren't addressing balance problems as fast as folks would wish.  "it's already july and you still haven't fixed _______."  that sorta thing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Manveru123]

I've seen that article and with all due respect I believe it's bull****. I'm also pretty sure we've discussed it a few times already over the last year

 

Of course this topic is 100% hindsight and Josh can make his games however he wants to, my true contribution to this topic remains a "next time buy Obs game a year after a release" suggestion, which is what I'm personally going to do. Anything else is beating a dead horse.

[MaxQuest]

 

 

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

Blizzard.

What game is that? Because if you mean Blizzard the company, they haven't released a single-player title in many, many years.

I was thinking about World of Warcraft, which has seen orders of magnitude more changes than PoE. And it actually qualifies as an answer because he didn't specify that it has to be a single-player game in his question ^^

 

Now, if we had to add this new restriction, then I would answer differently. For instance I have played the following games (that had a lot of ongoing balance changes) as single-player:

- Warcraft 3

- Heroes of Might and Magic 4 and 5

- Total War: Rome 2

- Galactic Civilizations series

The last having especially a lot of balance adjustments.

 

Generally, the games that would like to get played/completed more than twice, are more likely to receive balance updates.

Edited April 17, 2019 by MaxQuest

[Boeroer]

I've seen that article and with all due respect I believe it's bull****.

One can believe a lots of things and dismiss stuff with a handwave. That's too easy. Why is it bull****? The thing is that Josh Sawyer gives examples and makes some reasonable arguments in order to explain why he thinks that balancing is good for the majority of players. His experience as a designer (looking at unbalanced products in hindsight) also helps.

 

Meanwhile the opposition of balancing fails to do such things. At least in this thread. It's all about one's feelings - but no effort is made to go into depth.

[Aotrs Commander]

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

 

Stellaris, Hearts of Iron IV, Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis IV, Cities: Skylines (you could add almost any modern Paradox game to this list), the aforementioned Blizzard (Diablo 3, StarCraft 2 - which I ONLY cared about the single player campaigns of), X-Com 2, Command & Conquer 3 (to the point where some of the missions in the original campaign were almost impossible in the final version because they hadn't re-balanced those), War for the Overworld, OpenTTD, Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes, Ashes of the Singularity:Escalation, AI War...

 

(And note all of these are good to excellent games (now), with the most mediocre, in my opinion, being D3.)

 

Stellaris and WftO, in particular, have improved DRAMATICALLY over time. Bopth would have been rather forgettable if they'd remained on version 1.0 forever,

 

PoE 1 had more dramatic rebalences than PoE 2 has (still a little sore they took away my per-encounter low-level spells!), and while that is aytpical for an RPG in this genera, that's only because RPGs in this genera have mostly had to be slaves to AD&D (which was, sorry, a set of mechanically crap rules, regardless and independant of how much fun people might have had with it) and latter 3.0/3.5 (which both have severe issues in core only, fixed up by supplementaty material which post-dated the games) so there as less room to wiggle to start with.

 

Do I miss, a little bit, that in PoE 1 vanilla, my cipher could one-shot whole encounters with Mind Blades? Little bit, yeah, but by the same token, it was horribly overpowered, because I could one-shot whole encounters. Overall, I have never personally encountered a game yet whose major changes didn't make it overall better.

 

(Try doing that on a tabletop RPG and see how long it is before your DM either a) politely asks you not to break the game, please and have a gentleman's agreement, b) house-rules the thing out, c) kills your character, d) the DM or you leave in descending order of appropriate respense.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand there are people and always will be who love extremely challenging games - something when you die on every corner and even weakest enemies are as strong as hell. And to fight them you have zillions of useless abilities, which require tens of minute to finish one simple battle.  No, as you probably guessed I am not one of them. Having tonnes of useless abilities does not mean fun for me. And besides turning each damned battle into chess game is what I really hate. I prefer to spend my brain's horsepower on my work in rl, than on some stupid game.

 

So, turn the difficulty down a notch or two. Seriously. speaking as someone who is NOT interested in "challenge" in computer games - if I want that, I'll play a tabletop wargame - and who never plays above normal and frequently on Easy on every game of any stripe. Much as some of the more toxic members of the gaming community might ish it, I promise you no-one is going to come around to your house and castrate and immasculate you for not playing on max difficulty-ironmode or something. Anybody whose opinion is actually worth considering won't care what mode you play on. And on low difficulties, it kind of doesn't matter what you pick, because you can mostly breeze through the combats (which you apparently don't seem to like) and thus concentrate on the stuff you do, presumably the roleplaying and exploration in this specific case. If you don't like Doing A Hard Thing or find it unfun, then, y'know, don't?

 

Thee and me are the sort of people for who "easy modes" or "story modes" were made for*. As the hard modes and ironmans are made for the people that DO want a had challenge, so that we can all play the same game to our own tastes.

 

 

*Okay, I do tend to play RPGs more closer to normal than most other genres, but that's not quite the point.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Aotrs Commander

[Manveru123]

 

 

 

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

Blizzard.

What game is that? Because if you mean Blizzard the company, they haven't released a single-player title in many, many years.

I was thinking about World of Warcraft, which has seen orders of magnitude more changes than PoE. And it actually qualifies as an answer because he didn't specify that it has to be a single-player game in his question ^^

 

Now, if we had to add this new restriction, then I would answer differently. For instance I have played the following games (that had a lot of ongoing balance changes) as single-player:

- Warcraft 3

- Heroes of Might and Magic 4 and 5

- Total War: Rome 2

- Galactic Civilizations series

The last having especially a lot of balance adjustments.

 

Generally, the games that would like to get played/completed more than twice, are more likely to receive balance updates.

 

He didn't, but it's common sense not to compare a MMO (which always needs constant balance patches) and a single-player game. Also, none of the other games you mentioned are RPG. They're strategy games, I don't particularly care about that genre so I can't discuss. Generally, I've finished Baldur's Gate 2 27 times and never cared that it's not balanced.

 

 

I've seen that article and with all due respect I believe it's bull****.

One can believe a lots of things and dismiss stuff with a handwave. That's too easy. Why is it bull****? The thing is that Josh Sawyer gives examples and makes some reasonable arguments in order to explain why he thinks that balancing is good for the majority of players. His experience as a designer (looking at unbalanced products in hindsight) also helps.

 

Meanwhile the opposition of balancing fails to do such things. At least in this thread. It's all about one's feelings - but no effort is made to go into depth.

 

You call it reasonable arguments, I call it rambling. He's the only cRPG designer who does that, because others somehow understand that this is not how you make a successful SP game - even if you consider balance to be an important part of your philosophy, you at least wait until an important content update to introduce it, not randomly shove it down the player's throats. He thinks he simply knows better. His arguments are flawed (the Unlabored Blade change was not needed no matter how you look at it, he just did it because he could). Things that he considers problems (like overpowered abilities) were never an issue for players in any of the older games (or even more recent, DOS is a good example), they're only bad for him and his personal fanbase. His nerfs are often extremely heavy-handed, and the buffs - very light, he pretty much can't balance his own work properly. I'm seriously not looking for a constantly changing experience in my single-player games, it just frustrates me if the dev can't get it right for a year. It's twice as frustrating when you realize that overall Deadfire is an amazing game (from mechanics PoV at least) and I really can't wait to enjoy it properly.

Also, the last guy who advocated "perfect balance" was hit with a lightning axe by Thor.

 

 

 

And please name a single game by other company that changed as much as POE did?

 

Stellaris, Hearts of Iron IV, Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis IV, Cities: Skylines (you could add almost any modern Paradox game to this list), the aforementioned Blizzard (Diablo 3, StarCraft 2 - which I ONLY cared about the single player campaigns of), X-Com 2, Command & Conquer 3 (to the point where some of the missions in the original campaign were almost impossible in the final version because they hadn't re-balanced those), War for the Overworld, OpenTTD, Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes, Ashes of the Singularity:Escalation, AI War...

 

(And note all of these are good to excellent games (now), with the most mediocre, in my opinion, being D3.)

 

Stellaris and WftO, in particular, have improved DRAMATICALLY over time. Bopth would have been rather forgettable if they'd remained on version 1.0 forever,

 

PoE 1 had more dramatic rebalences than PoE 2 has (still a little sore they took away my per-encounter low-level spells!), and while that is aytpical for an RPG in this genera, that's only because RPGs in this genera have mostly had to be slaves to AD&D (which was, sorry, a set of mechanically crap rules, regardless and independant of how much fun people might have had with it) and latter 3.0/3.5 (which both have severe issues in core only, fixed up by supplementaty material which post-dated the games) so there as less room to wiggle to start with.

 

Do I miss, a little bit, that in PoE 1 vanilla, my cipher could one-shot whole encounters with Mind Blades? Little bit, yeah, but by the same token, it was horribly overpowered, because I could one-shot whole encounters. Overall, I have never personally encountered a game yet whose major changes didn't make it overall better.

 

(Try doing that on a tabletop RPG and see how long it is before your DM either a) politely asks you not to break the game, please and have a gentleman's agreement, b) house-rules the thing out, c) kills your character, d) the DM or you leave in descending order of appropriate respense.)

 

 

 

Not only none of this are RPGs, the fact that you personally only cared about Diablo 3's campaign doesn't change the fact that this is not a single-player game. This game literally rewards you for partying up with other people.

The last time I played a tabletop game in some Vampire universe, we agreed to have unlimited power so we could throw ships at each other. In single-player games, I tend to not have to agree on anything, and instead I play how I want to - as long as the developers actually allow me to do so, instead of trying to restrict me all the time.