Balancing games - Can it be too much?

[Excalibur_2102]

After all this time, I still haven't played PoE.  Hopefully I will very soon, but I just wanted to talk about future support of games and how it is handled.  I thought I was holding off playing due to possible bugs and wanting to play the game in the best state with the white march (and this still is the case to a large extent).

 

However, I was reading a negative review of the game earlier, and the guys main beef with the game (only beef if I recall) was the rebalancing of classes and the game since launch, and how he would make a character, enjoy the way he was playing the class and the game, only to have that class nerfed in a later patch.  He claimed this happened several times.  Now of course I don't know if hes over exaggerating the extent of the changes as I have not played the game, but I couldn't help but agree and came to the realisation that this is also a strong reason why ive been holding off playing.  It takes me quite a while to play these games, and it would bug me slightly if the classes kept changing throughout my playthrough.  Its not just PoE I do this with, but virtually all PC releases these days I hold off for sometimes over a year before playing these days.

 

I love the post release support that obsidian has shown, but can it some times be too much in the case of balancing?

 

[Jojobobo]

I think they probably released the game a little too early in hindsight, as a fair few of the classes got a big shake up and these things could have been resolved through more beta testing. However at the same time I appreciate they couldn't **** around so many backers for what seemed like forever, and obviously there always a few more bugs noticed when you take things alpha in any case.

 

From my experience, the game seems really polished now. My laptop broke during the late v1 patches, and once it was fixed I thought I'd take a break until the full White March expansion was released (i.e. now). I've noticed lots of little really nice tweaks, such as making drugs useful, touching up a lot of the items to makes them more useful, introducing balance tweaks like item summon durations (a little harsh, but certainly not giving players an extra boost so I'm okay with it) which all seem to work really well. With this level of polish, the game now does feel very much like a classic to me - which I maybe wasn't feeling on the game's release.

 

What I want now is for Obsidian to bring this high level of balance to PoE sequel, as well as some innovation, without a load of patching. I think they're now capable of it, and I really want to see them have this kind of success without some many player gripes out of the gate.

[mychal26]

If I play any game extensively on Steam I always play in offline mode to ensure that there are no changes to my character or the game when I'm playing. 

[why]

I'm not a backer, so I don't have a horse in that race, but I have also found the regular rebalancing off-putting.  I think, somewhat along the lines of what Jojobobo said up above, Pillars one was basically a gamble.  Creating a whole new complex system with a bunch of design decisions they knew all along would have many detractors from a variety of corners was a calculated risk.  I firmly believe that they understood that there would be a lot of post release tweaking to be done and released the game, a solid and fun game in its own right, with the vision of fine tuning some of the ideas over the course of several patches in order to nail down the broader concepts so that they could offer up a superior sequel.  That's entirely conjecture on my part, but they never stopped tweaking the game, and I don't mean just around the edges.

 

That probably makes it sound more mercenary than I view it.  I think they had a choice, offer far less content with far more polish or a lot more content and then take the time to polish it.  The former would have been a lot smoother on the front end, but the latter will allow them to put out a superior sequel.  I liked the first time I played through, but I enjoyed it much more the second time, especially after two things.  One, I stopped thinking about the controversies and just played the damned game.  Two, they made small but significant changes with patching that enhanced the game for me.

 

Remember, other than when I talk about my experiences playing the game, my post consists of wild assed guessing.  I don't know what Obsidian was thinking and don't really care.  It worked out well for me in the end, so all is well.

[AndreaColombo]

Honestly, I think the game has come a very long way since release. That the devs still care so much as to make balance changes after one year bespeaks their dedication.

[anameforobsidian]

I think that systems really gain emergent properties through a long series of changes, so I would just say that if that bothers you hold off on playing.  I think the game has gotten significantly better, and you can reroll characters if changes get too much.

[Ink Blot]

 

 It takes me quite a while to play these games, and it would bug me slightly if the classes kept changing throughout my playthrough.  Its not just PoE I do this with, but virtually all PC releases these days I hold off for sometimes over a year before playing these days.

 

I love the post release support that obsidian has shown, but can it some times be too much in the case of balancing?

 

Similar here. I tend to wait until after a game has all its DLC and patches released before playing it (even though I may purchase it sooner than that). And yeah, it bothers me a lot when changes to the game systems/classes/etc. 'break' my characters. And that's why I wait. As for PoE, I can understand the need for tweaking and balancing since release (I played through the whole thing soon after release, planning on another go once both expansion parts were out), but I kind of get the feeling it may have gone beyond necessity. But then again, I didn't particularly like the game, so I may be biased in my assessment. Hopefully the changes will make it a more enjoyable experience for my next try.

[demeisen]

I backed the game on KS, played it as soon as it released (v1 I guess?), and now I'm back for another play through w/ WM.

 

IMHO, the game is much better balanced and more fun now than it was then.  I think the balance changes have been a net positive - it's too bad they couldn't be included in the original game, but I'm sure they had budget and time constraints, and anyway you sort of have to see what happens once the game is exposed to the whole wide world.

 

I'm glad they've made them, anyway.  Most of my peeves about the original play dynamics seem fixed now.  So kudos to Obsidian for refining this over time.  I hope they'll take the engine, and the refinements, and keep building new stuff with it.  Other standalone games.  I'm down to back whatever else they do on this engine.

[Gromnir]

am having sympathy for folks who invest considerable time into the game only to have a patch or new build significant alter their character.  it can be frustrating to get many hours into a game and suddenly have the developers pull the metaphorical rug out from underneath your feet. that said, this is the example o' an either/or situation that don't represent a False dichotomy.  

 

sure, the developers coulda' left the game as it were on day one and only fixed technical problems.  'course then you woulda' had Gromnir, at the very least, complaining 'bout all the broken aspects o' the game.  after release it became obvious that late game cypher were ridiculous strong. cyphers never ran outta focus and a handful o' powhaz were doing incredible damage. with perception and resolve providing significant deflection bonuses, players built tanks that were functional invulnerable to ordinary melee and ranged attacks. traps were wacky overpower das any number o' comical adra dragon fights revealed. it took many builds to get chanters to a point where they were neither op or gimped.  etc. failure to fix PERCEIVED problems woulda' had Gromnir, and many others, complaining. so, if the developers had backed off of balance after day 1, there woulda' indeed been consistency. am doubting that many would argue against the value o' having consistent rules and mechanics in a game, yes?  and truth to tell, doing nothing woulda' been far easier for the developers.  unfortunately, if the developers had taken the easier path and chosen to fix technical problems and add new content as 'posed to continuing their balancing efforts, many players such as Gromnir woulda' continued to rail 'bout all the broken, and easily fixable, mechanics. were no way they coulda' made everybody happy.

 

thankfully the developers showed good sense by adding a respec feature.  obsidian's predictable balancing efforts did indeed alter many character concepts and builds.  yeah, respec were not a perfect solution for those who had seen their concept diluted or changed, but at least these players could respec their character w/o having to restart a game in which they mighta already invested dozens of hours.  not a perfect solution were respec, but it did take some o' the sting outta the continuing balancing changes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Rooksx]

It would of course have been better if PoE was released without requiring any balance changes but that was never going to happen. Obsidian has developed a new, complex rule system so it's inevitable that there would be flaws that would only become apparent after lots of people had played the game and provided their feedback.

 

Beta testing among a relatively small pool of players is never going to be enough for a game this complex unless the testing period is greatly extended. But that may not be viable because at some point Obsidian need to make some money and release the game, in part so they can finance further tweaking and balancing.

 

What we can hope is that PoE2 will be released in a more polished state as a result of everything Obsidian have learned and the money they've made.

[DKDArtagnan]

The thing about balance is that you can't have perfect balance between classes and enemies without utterly sacrificing diversity.

 

There's simply no way around the fact that more balance means less diversity. It's logically inevitable.

 

However, balance != fun and diversity != fun. It's the right combination for the right person that's fun.

 

To me, PoE went too far trying to maintain balance - especially considering the entirely singleplayer nature of the game. However, that's not really about the patches or fixes. It's more about the core mechanics and systems that simply don't support what I consider a sufficiently rich playing field.

Edited February 24, 2016 by DKDArtagnan

[Gromnir]

The thing about balance is that you can't have perfect balance between classes and enemies without utterly sacrificing diversity.

 

There's simply no way around the fact that more balance means less diversity. It's logically inevitable.

 

However, balance != fun and diversity != fun. It's the right combination for the right person that's fun.

 

To me, PoE went too far trying to maintain balance - especially considering the entirely singleplayer nature of the game. However, that's not really about the patches or fixes. It's more about the core mechanics and systems that simply don't support what I consider a sufficiently rich playing field.

complete untrue.

 

there is very little in common between the poe cypher and the paladin.  the mechanics o' gameplay is extreme different with cypher's being adept at striking, but also capable at debuffing and having cc capabilities as well while needing to build focus through combat.  on the other hand, paladins are a Relative low maintenance support class that is durable enough to fulfill the primary tank role in the party.  making both classes balanced so that each is offering roughly equivalent contributions to your party is not diminishing diversity.  heck, as this ain't a mmo with pvp, the developers has specific noted that the goal o' balance is other than producing classes with genuine equal power.  as hard as this is for some folks to hear, the goal is to make classes and talents equivalent fun.   regardless o' power, if it were simple more fun to play as a fighter tank than any other class, then obsidian would effectively be discouraging folks from playing other potential tank classes.  so, balance promotes viable choices, and more choice in a crpg is a good thing, yes?

 

and yeah, power is always gonna be a factor in balancing.  if in some random game it is clear better to use a two-handed sword 'cause two-handed swords is objective superior damage dealers to all other weapons, then regardless o' the diversity o' weapons available to a player, there will be a tendency to choose the best.  even though there is little point in trying to WIN in a single-player crpg designed so that any yutz with a couple firing neurons can complete the game successfully, folks still tend to try and make stronger, rather than weaker, characters.  even so, balancing power is not mutual exclusive with diversity.  avoiding clear best or worst weapons, talents and classes does not result in reduced diversity.  in most cases, balances actual enhances diversity 'cause more talents, weapons and classes is viable... and fun.

 

the notion that balance diminishes diversity or fun is complete bass ackwards.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[DKDArtagnan]

 

The thing about balance is that you can't have perfect balance between classes and enemies without utterly sacrificing diversity.

 

There's simply no way around the fact that more balance means less diversity. It's logically inevitable.

 

However, balance != fun and diversity != fun. It's the right combination for the right person that's fun.

 

To me, PoE went too far trying to maintain balance - especially considering the entirely singleplayer nature of the game. However, that's not really about the patches or fixes. It's more about the core mechanics and systems that simply don't support what I consider a sufficiently rich playing field.

complete untrue.

 

there is very little in common between the poe cypher and the paladin.  the mechanics o' gameplay is extreme different with cypher's being adept at striking, but also capable at debuffing and having cc capabilities as well while needing to build focus through combat.  on the other hand, paladins are a Relative low maintenance support class that is durable enough to fulfill the primary tank role in the party.  making both classes balanced so that each is offering roughly equivalent contributions to your party is not diminishing diversity.  heck, as this ain't a mmo with pvp, the developers has specific noted that the goal o' balance is other than producing classes with genuine equal power.  as hard as this is for some folks to hear, the goal is to make classes and talents equivalent fun.   regardless o' power, if it were simple more fun to play as a fighter tank than any other class, then obsidian would effectively be discouraging folks from playing other potential tank classes.  so, balance promotes viable choices, and more choice in a crpg is a good thing, yes?

 

and yeah, power is always gonna be a factor in balancing.  if in some random game it is clear better to use a two-handed sword 'cause two-handed swords is objective superior damage dealers to all other weapons, then regardless o' the diversity o' weapons available to a player, there will be a tendency to choose the best.  even though there is little point in trying to WIN in a single-player crpg designed so that any yutz with a couple firing neurons can complete the game successfully, folks still tend to try and make stronger, rather than weaker, characters.  even so, balancing power is not mutual exclusive with diversity.  avoiding clear best or worst weapons, talents and classes does not result in reduced diversity.  in most cases, balances actual enhances diversity 'cause more talents, weapons and classes is viable... and fun.

 

the notion that balance diminishes diversity or fun is complete bass ackwards.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that less diversity means no diversity.

 

If you think something like multiclassing would bring less, not more, diversity - then we'll have to agree to disagree. That statement would make no sense to me.

 

As for balance diminishing diversity - it's inevitable. But it's not a black and white issue, and no one is talking about 100% balance and 0% diversity.

 

That said, a good example of what I'm saying is a game like Chess. In Chess, you have close to 100% balance and 0% diversity. The single potentially unbalanced aspect of the game is who goes first. That's it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by DKDArtagnan

[anameforobsidian]

The idea behind less multiclassing bringing less diversity is that multiclassing creates ridiculously optimized builds, so no sane player could refuse them.  And designers would either have to let a significant subset of players faceroll the content, or raise the difficulty so everyone is forced into those builds.  You see this a lot in MMOs, but it happens in other games too.

[DKDArtagnan]

The idea behind less multiclassing bringing less diversity is that multiclassing creates ridiculously optimized builds, so no sane player could refuse them.  And designers would either have to let a significant subset of players faceroll the content, or raise the difficulty so everyone is forced into those builds.  You see this a lot in MMOs, but it happens in other games too.

 

The thing about these builds you're talking about is that there are hundreds of them. There's no "ultimate" build - that's a myth. Some people will claim to have found the one true build - but they can never agree on which it really is.

 

Also, people constantly seem to forget that any new and complex system will take time to exploit. The core of D&D has existed since the 70s. It's hardly a surprise that some powerful combinations have been discovered.

 

But I recommend looking up some build guides available around the web. You'd be surprised at just how many "ultra" builds exist out there.

 

Also, even if there was a single ultra build - why should the designers concern themselves with players going that route? Why did they introduce "Story Time" mode if they don't want players to walk through the combat?

Edited February 24, 2016 by DKDArtagnan

[Gromnir]

 

 

The thing about balance is that you can't have perfect balance between classes and enemies without utterly sacrificing diversity.

 

There's simply no way around the fact that more balance means less diversity. It's logically inevitable.

 

However, balance != fun and diversity != fun. It's the right combination for the right person that's fun.

 

To me, PoE went too far trying to maintain balance - especially considering the entirely singleplayer nature of the game. However, that's not really about the patches or fixes. It's more about the core mechanics and systems that simply don't support what I consider a sufficiently rich playing field.

complete untrue.

 

there is very little in common between the poe cypher and the paladin.  the mechanics o' gameplay is extreme different with cypher's being adept at striking, but also capable at debuffing and having cc capabilities as well while needing to build focus through combat.  on the other hand, paladins are a Relative low maintenance support class that is durable enough to fulfill the primary tank role in the party.  making both classes balanced so that each is offering roughly equivalent contributions to your party is not diminishing diversity.  heck, as this ain't a mmo with pvp, the developers has specific noted that the goal o' balance is other than producing classes with genuine equal power.  as hard as this is for some folks to hear, the goal is to make classes and talents equivalent fun.   regardless o' power, if it were simple more fun to play as a fighter tank than any other class, then obsidian would effectively be discouraging folks from playing other potential tank classes.  so, balance promotes viable choices, and more choice in a crpg is a good thing, yes?

 

and yeah, power is always gonna be a factor in balancing.  if in some random game it is clear better to use a two-handed sword 'cause two-handed swords is objective superior damage dealers to all other weapons, then regardless o' the diversity o' weapons available to a player, there will be a tendency to choose the best.  even though there is little point in trying to WIN in a single-player crpg designed so that any yutz with a couple firing neurons can complete the game successfully, folks still tend to try and make stronger, rather than weaker, characters.  even so, balancing power is not mutual exclusive with diversity.  avoiding clear best or worst weapons, talents and classes does not result in reduced diversity.  in most cases, balances actual enhances diversity 'cause more talents, weapons and classes is viable... and fun.

 

the notion that balance diminishes diversity or fun is complete bass ackwards.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that less diversity means no diversity.

 

If you think something like multiclassing would bring less, not more, diversity - then we'll have to agree to disagree. That statement would make no sense to me.

 

As for balance diminishing diversity - it's inevitable. But it's not a black and white issue, and no one is talking about 100% balance and 0% diversity.

 

That said, a good example of what I'm saying is a game like Chess. In Chess, you have close to 100% balance and 0% diversity. The single potentially unbalanced aspect of the game is who goes first. That's it.

 

...

 

who are you responding to?  

 

pick a single example (chess) and suggest that its balancing is applicable to a non analogous situation is not only bad form but illogical.  poe ain't chess.  when Gromnir plays poe, he does not line up his character directly across a board from the computer and then try to knock off opposing pieces until we defeat his/her king. heck, as we already noted, poe ain't a mmo with pvp.  am not competing with anybody in poe, and there is no need or desire on the behalf o' the developers to make certain that when we play as a priest of eotahs that we should face exact the same challenges faced by a dracozzi paladinin paladin.  poe is so complete not like chess.  ridiculous.  as we noted already, the goal in chess is to win, while in poe, winning is a near forgone cone conclusion.  poe is a complete different kinda game from chess with complete different balance requirements.  

 

as we didn't address multi-classing, your hypothetical attribution to a stance by Gromnir seems a bit misplaced, but given the initial non-responsive bit 'bout less diversity being different from no diversity, we shouldn't be surprised. 

 

btw, simple saying that balance diminishes diversity don't make it true. not by a long shot.  we explained how balance actual enhances diversity by making alternative classes, weapons, talents and builds More viable.  you didn't respond even if you believe you have.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Gromnir

[DKDArtagnan]

 

 

 

The thing about balance is that you can't have perfect balance between classes and enemies without utterly sacrificing diversity.

 

There's simply no way around the fact that more balance means less diversity. It's logically inevitable.

 

However, balance != fun and diversity != fun. It's the right combination for the right person that's fun.

 

To me, PoE went too far trying to maintain balance - especially considering the entirely singleplayer nature of the game. However, that's not really about the patches or fixes. It's more about the core mechanics and systems that simply don't support what I consider a sufficiently rich playing field.

complete untrue.

 

there is very little in common between the poe cypher and the paladin.  the mechanics o' gameplay is extreme different with cypher's being adept at striking, but also capable at debuffing and having cc capabilities as well while needing to build focus through combat.  on the other hand, paladins are a Relative low maintenance support class that is durable enough to fulfill the primary tank role in the party.  making both classes balanced so that each is offering roughly equivalent contributions to your party is not diminishing diversity.  heck, as this ain't a mmo with pvp, the developers has specific noted that the goal o' balance is other than producing classes with genuine equal power.  as hard as this is for some folks to hear, the goal is to make classes and talents equivalent fun.   regardless o' power, if it were simple more fun to play as a fighter tank than any other class, then obsidian would effectively be discouraging folks from playing other potential tank classes.  so, balance promotes viable choices, and more choice in a crpg is a good thing, yes?

 

and yeah, power is always gonna be a factor in balancing.  if in some random game it is clear better to use a two-handed sword 'cause two-handed swords is objective superior damage dealers to all other weapons, then regardless o' the diversity o' weapons available to a player, there will be a tendency to choose the best.  even though there is little point in trying to WIN in a single-player crpg designed so that any yutz with a couple firing neurons can complete the game successfully, folks still tend to try and make stronger, rather than weaker, characters.  even so, balancing power is not mutual exclusive with diversity.  avoiding clear best or worst weapons, talents and classes does not result in reduced diversity.  in most cases, balances actual enhances diversity 'cause more talents, weapons and classes is viable... and fun.

 

the notion that balance diminishes diversity or fun is complete bass ackwards.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that less diversity means no diversity.

 

If you think something like multiclassing would bring less, not more, diversity - then we'll have to agree to disagree. That statement would make no sense to me.

 

As for balance diminishing diversity - it's inevitable. But it's not a black and white issue, and no one is talking about 100% balance and 0% diversity.

 

That said, a good example of what I'm saying is a game like Chess. In Chess, you have close to 100% balance and 0% diversity. The single potentially unbalanced aspect of the game is who goes first. That's it.

 

...

 

who are you responding to?  

 

pick a single example (chess) and suggest that its balancing is applicable to a non analogous situation is not only bad form but illogical.  poe ain't chess.  when Gromnir plays poe, he does not line up his character directly across a board from the computer and then try to knock off opposing pieces until we defeat his/her king. heck, as we already noted, poe ain't a mmo with pvp.  am not competing with anybody in poe, and there is no need or desire on the behalf o' the developers to make certain that when we play as a priest of eotahs that we should face exact the same challenges faced by a dracozzi paladinin paladin.  poe is so complete not like chess.  ridiculous.  as we noted already, the goal in chess is to win, while in poe, winning is a near forgone cone conclusion.  poe is a complete different kinda game from chess with complete different balance requirements.  

 

as we didn't address multi-classing, your hypothetical attribution to a stance by Gromnir seems a bit misplaced, but given the initial non-responsive bit 'bout less diversity being different from no diversity, we shouldn't be surprised. 

 

btw, simple saying that balance diminishes diversity don't make it true. not by a long shot.  we explained how balance actual enhances diversity by making alternative classes, weapons, talents and builds More viable.  you didn't respond even if you believe you have.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

 

 

I'm talking to you.

 

My Chess example was to demonstrate what can happen to diversity in a game with complete emphasis on balance.

 

You seem to have ignored the part where I said this isn't a black and white issue like that, and Chess is an extreme example to demonstrate my point - nothing more.

 

The lack of multiclassing is an example of omitting a rich feature for the sake of balance, from where I sit. Do you disagree?

Edited February 24, 2016 by DKDArtagnan

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

I'm talking to you.

 

My Chess example was to demonstrate what can happen to diversity in a game with complete emphasis on balance.

 

You seem to have ignored the part where I said this isn't a black and white issue like that, and Chess is an extreme example to demonstrate my point - nothing more.

 

The lack of multiclassing is an example of omitting a rich feature for the sake of balance, from where I sit. Do you disagree?

 

talking to us?  possibly.  responding to us?  not at all.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Excalibur_2102]

Honestly, I think the game has come a very long way since release. That the devs still care so much as to make balance changes after one year bespeaks their dedication.

 

You of all people should know how long I wait to play games sometimes!

 

But yes, it is nice to hear that the majority of you guys says the game has got better over time, which makes me look forward to playing it even more.  I'm actually currently playing WL2 directors cut, and really liking it.  But again I wonder what mu opinion would have been if id have played on release

[Doppelschwert]

Multiclassing can and will shut down viable options like nothing else, especially if its not properly balanced.

 

The idea behind less multiclassing bringing less diversity is that multiclassing creates ridiculously optimized builds, so no sane player could refuse them.  And designers would either have to let a significant subset of players faceroll the content, or raise the difficulty so everyone is forced into those builds.  You see this a lot in MMOs, but it happens in other games too.

 

As an illustrative example for this explanation, take Etrian Odyssey 3, a turn based dungeon crawler hommage to wizardry. The game features 11 classes and lets you multiclass them to get a total of 121 combinations (since the order of the classes matters).

 

Yet, if you go the boards on gamefaqs there is a high consensus that most combinations are mechanically strictly inferior to other combinations, which probably yields you at most 25 effective combinations, with single optimal builds for certain roles like tank, healer, CC and so on.

 

Building your party differently will make the game harder for you at best and get you ridiculed at the board at worst.

 

 

 

[Luckmann]

Options are more important than the balance between available options.

 

That being said, no, you can't balance "too much".

[Baron Pampa]

I completely understand people who feel disappointed because of the changes after the release. None of my characters became broken because of them(In fact, I've made my first playthrough before any significant change, and the second one much later), but it's always a little sad for me that the first, unique contact with the game would be much better had I waited with it. However, I think that the gameplay mechanics are currently superior because of the tweaks, and it's great that the changes have been made. Long story short - it's always better when the games get improved with time, but I won't play POE2 immediately after the release .

[mazeltov]

Almost a year after release and major balance changes keep on coming. Attempting to hit a sweet spot between caster and noncaster power while still resting on a Vancian framework was always doomed to failure IMO. Gave it a nice shot by trying to incorporate 4th Edition principles, but the gap just couldn't be bridged. Add in the hot mess that is Cipher...

 

Hopefully JSaw puts out a personal mod for PoE sometime after official patches have stopped, like he did with New Vegas. Optional balance changes that don't need to be compromised for general consumption.

[why]

I completely understand people who feel disappointed because of the changes after the release. None of my characters became broken because of them(In fact, I've made my first playthrough before any significant change, and the second one much later), but it's always a little sad for me that the first, unique contact with the game would be much better had I waited with it. However, I think that the gameplay mechanics are currently superior because of the tweaks, and it's great that the changes have been made. Long story short - it's always better when the games get improved with time, but I won't play POE2 immediately after the release .

I think that's fair enough, Baron, but Pillars two might come out the box much better and without needing as many tweaks because of their experience with Pillars one.  At least that's how it looks from the outside.  I don't think anything releases in perfection, so there's always that and, of course, if their goals are similarly ambitious, it might entail a lot of post release work.  I'm sure there's a lot to be said for waiting for a while before playing the sequel, since they've earned a rep for yeoman's work after shipping.  I just think they're better set to release a sequel that won't need nearly as much tweaking.

 

Hopefully JSaw puts out a personal mod for PoE sometime after official patches have stopped, like he did with New Vegas. Optional balance changes that don't need to be compromised for general consumption.

I suppose mileage may vary, but I don't begrudge Major Changes for the sake of General Consumption because they pay for some of my Private Desires. Sorry, couldn't resist the bad puns. However, in all seriousness, I'm probably closer to the unwashed masses than the elite gaming crew. I would think that, yeah, a lot of developers would want an unshackled and uncompromising amount of freedom in making a game, I'd also like to think that they want their creative vision to appeal to the largest group possible. Not just because of commercial concerns, but also because you want to share your talents. Writing what you and three other people with rarified tastes consider the worlds greatest novel might give satisfaction, but I'm sure you'd rather that it had wide appeal and earned broad praise.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Mr. Sawyer making a mod for folks who didn't exactly like how everything came out, but some of us enjoyed our Vancian mages, our non-caster companions, and our hot mess ciphers. Even our confounding chanters, too!

Edited February 24, 2016 by why

[Valorian]

Although sometimes classes and abilities get overbuffed for no reason, I'm happy that they're patching class balance from time to time.

It's time to look at racial abilities as well, because a passive like battle-forged is in its own league of absurdly powerful.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Valorian