Israfael
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 3,580
No, I'm saying that trying to "balance" some builds against each other is laughable and impossible affair. If the multiplayer devs can't really do that without turning games dead simple and shoehorning players into very specific modes of behaviour, what do you hope to achieve in a game which strives to create as many interactable systems as possible? And why you actually need it, it's like additional layer of difficulty selection, some games (like Nox, for example, which started as a purely PVP game and is actually a damn good pvp game) even explicitly used it (warrior - easy, wizard - hard). You can't really balance the game so that ___everyone___ will experience it in the same way, some people will inevitably find your hard mode too easy as well as some will find easy too overtuned (cue in Verge grade players and various youtubers who are resource starved even on medium or whatever it is called in Prey).Dude, you've been arguing that balance is meaningless in a singleplayer game and essentially isn't worth striving for at all.
Why do you believe that player choices are only guided by efficiency? You guys are so mired up in the metagaming that you don't see why most people play the games. For example, I played the PF:KM on hard with fully vanilla companions and without meta-guided dips which would make them more "optimized" and such. I still finished the game and had _some_ challenge. The game does not prevent me or anyone else though from going completely munchkin and building hyper-optimized party with vivisector dips, 1000hp critting saints and so on. Would you also "balance out" such possbilities or make the game even harder so that munchkins will not kill everything by simply looking at the enemies?That is to say, they attempt balance the options against one another to give the player interesting and relevant choices to make.
Last edited: