Please don't be like blizzard
|
the only problem of the idea of mid game balance is assuming that ggg is capable of slightly balancing stuff.
example : cast on freeze. deleted. not nerfed, not reduced. simply deleted. so in this scenario, any hypothetical scenarios around small buff and nerfs are out the window. plus they like the game being imabalanced as poe 1 proved it for years. are we even sure they dont like what they see in endgame ? they did add temporalis in the game. the players didnt add the item themselves |
|
" It only has upsides if a game is already at least somewhat balanced. In PoE2, we have life builds with 4k hp and attack skills with 2 second animation and then builds with 27k ES, 20% flat damage reduction, max block, and an army of minions to tank all the aggro. Making balance changes every few months just won't work. |
|
|
a buff to couple classes wouldnt hurt. but they probably "work as intended" lolol. you play warrior while the dev play the op classes and feel the sweet power of gatekeeping
|
|
|
I think classes will never be balanced with this approach, and I guess I'm fine with that. Like, different classes will be different difficulty mode, instead of having difficulty modes implicitly.
I find it a bit weird though that skillful players will always have less currency and achievements this way, than those who just play a broken build. But this way game probably will be more popular, and it is not competitive game, so why not. I wouldn't even mind having pay-to-win if it helps to deliver more content (but this probably actually reduce profit in the long run). Current system I would call "play-boring-to-win", I guess it's more popular that pay-to-win. Last edited by Suchka_777#4336 on Feb 6, 2025, 10:58:34 PM
|
|
|
This is a common problem in any ARPG class balancing vs mobs/elites/bosses.
If they buff/nerf the other one, they need to buff/nerf the others too. Diablo 4 has same issue with poe 2. |
|
" Why? Like, if one class is over-performing and all others are fine (hypothetically), why they should buff/nerf other classes after nerfing over-performing one? |
|
|
I see one way to slightly help with balance classes in terms of in-game currency profit. If different classes would excel in different end-game mechanics, and noone play certain class because it is overall very weak, but it still over-performs other classes in that mechanic, then currency from that end-game mechanic will have higher price due the deficit, and that class will have some compensation this way. Ofc, they can't be distinct too much and it wouldn't fix much, but it will be interesting anyway if different classes will handle better different content, would be more interesting to try different classes this way.
|
|
" You've made a common mistake. They already changed the system. The "2" in the game title is clear evidence. Last edited by LeFlesh#9979 on Feb 7, 2025, 4:17:42 AM
|
|
|
Games with this level of freedom in character builds are insanely hard to balance in a way, that everyone is happy and all gem combos are equally powerful. That's probably why they're happy with the trade system (which is crazy bad). It automatically turns OP builds and items into something no person with a proper day job can achieve due to immediately costing 10 mirrors of kalandra.
Last edited by voonvoon#6984 on Feb 7, 2025, 4:33:16 AM
|
|
" In competitive games they manage to do it, but players there are ready to constant balance patches. You may think that most competitive games don't have such level of freedom, but they certainly do, some of them. For example, in Smite you may consider each of 130 heroes as skills, each team pick 5 skills, and around 300 purchasable items can be considered as support gems. Possibilities to build a team are absolutely endless, still they manage to balance it. So the problem is not in the level of freedom. |
|
