Larian, please kindly stop nerfing skills/combos in DOS2. Not only this is SP game, not PvP game, but also why you even do this?

You gave us Editor to play with. It takes around 10 min to learn how to edit stats in game.

You nerfed Reactive Armor. Well, why? I just went back to Stats editor and put back again its old AP cost and damage... What was the point?

We can, if we want just edit skills to cost 0 AP, do 900% dmg, put all status effects known to target and break the game this way.

Hell, we can just download Cheat Engine table and set up unlimited AP and others stuff.

What I mean is- If someone does not want to use "OP" combo - he won't. But if someone wants to break the game - he can do it anyway, using the same tools you have provided us. Hell, he can just grab Lone Wolf and do 18k dmg from Barrage in ACT4.

Also- what is the point of nerfing something in SP RPG? What does it change? There is soooo many OP things you can do in this game that who it will help?

Now I will have to again spend time to try to revert the Chicken Claw + Rupture combo or install the old version of game to have fun with it. Because you broke something and now Chicken seems to be "smart" to not run when he has Rupture on them. Lucian bless the super intelligent chickens.

I don't get you. Have you ever seen nerfs in BG, NWN, IWD games etc?

They hate mods and want to punish you for using them by making it so you can't earn petty little super secret Steam achievements.

Seriously though, why disable them and why are they even hidden? What a weird, random thing to do to something so petty.

You're two patches late to the Reactive Armor changes.

Reactive Armor was changed in Patch 1 (9/21/2017).

- Tier upgraded from Novice to Adept
- ActionPoints increased from 1 to 2
- Cooldown increased from 5 to 6
- Damage Multiplier reduced from 35 to 20
- Damage Range reduced from 10 to 5


Yes.

I also agree that the game has been over-nerfed since the late alphas. Maybe it makes sense in tactician, which I don't see myself ever playing, but it's removed some of the more fun bits and "argh, this is all going horribly wrong, I need a get-out-of-gaol option!" Maybe the answer was to nerf them for tactician and leave them alone for everyone else...

@Beny this is a multiplayer game that can be played in single player. PvP can happen in this game should you and your friends decide to compete againts each other.

Things get very competitive in Driftwood where story driven kill quests for your companions start to intertwine (see Sebile and Ifan,the guy who gets to start the fight with Roost gets to have his quest progressed further).

'Competitive Questing' is hardly a positive feature of this game. It's a bizarre design tumor thats far more likely to cause a breakup of that campaign's group than anything even remotely positive.

And I would wager that this game is played as a single player game far, FAR more often than as a multiplayer game. Portraying it as primarily multiplayer is disingenuous in the extreme.

Just because the comunity wants to play it as a single player campaing,doesn't change the fact that Larian wanted to make a game that can be played with friends. Also competitive questing just reinforces the multiplayer aspect of the game and as far as I can tell Larian will continue to balance this game as a multiplayer one...normaly I would call this a co-op multiplayer but with competitive questing....I am ify with the co-op bit because I never had the option to screw over my friends in a survival game for personal gain,but I would definetly call this a multiplayer despite how the community plays it.

Bottom line - this game is a multiplayer one because you can play it with friends,Larian's goal in the kickstarter was to make a game which can be played with friends, competitive questing is an experimental thing meant to make the game more fun by having friends compete for quest completion.

this is literally just a point of semantics. the game is equally a single player and multiplayer game and it was optimized for both. everything you're saying is just anecdotal and opinion-based. there's no evidence anywhere that this is a primarily multiplayer game or that it was designed as such

calling this game "competitive", even in its multiplayer format, is just nonsense

I'm not disputing that they wanted to make a game that can be played with others, but that in no way makes it "primarily a multiplayer game": indeed I've never previously seen it described in those terms and would dispute that's actually the case.

Well in my Opinion this game is a Singleplayer Coop Game with some Multiplayer parts i never use. So for me its absolutely stupid to "balance" skills in a game where you can cheat so easy. This is not a Online game like Poe, Diablo or WoW where it make sense.

Yeah, but I already brough it back to 70 dmg, 10 range, 1 AP and 5 cooldwon. Was like 1 min in Editor to have Reactive Armor back.

It is just stupid.

I can host game and still use CE and be god vs others. Hell if host has mods installed you won't even know that your Rogue can deal 20% less damage because Host decided to nerf Rogues because he doesn't like them.

This game has COOP but is NOWHERE competetive. BG and BG2 also had COOP for 20 years. Nobody I played with ever complained that "ow, your Kensai/Mage with sling is OP, and my Druid is meh!" or "OMG, you just use Time Stop + Acceleration + XXX pells and I have nothing to do in fight".

You can't ever ever balance RPG game. One build will just replace another as the best/better.

All those nerf do are reducing fun in game. I don't play RPGs to be "competetive". I paly them to have fun.

For a lot of people, the two are synonymous. Though for me, video games have been a haven from what I regard as the menace of competitive team sports, so although I can't really object to them being catered to at all, I would object to finding myself having the choice between joining in or leaving.

"You can just change it" is hardly a good reason for Larian to stop making changes.

You can just change mods, too. Want us to stop making changes? In fact, why should anyone make mods if you can make them yourself? Why balance a game at all? Maybe they should set all the values to zero, and let you decide what those values should be?

What if when you go into a restaurant and order something special, they bring out a plate, point to the kitchen, and tell you to make it yourself? I like where your head's at: an entire world revolving around the idea that nothing has to be done if you can do it yourself.

Oh, right. Games aren't just your sandboxes; they're also art, made by artists who want to make masterpieces of which they can be proud. They want to make the best game they can, and continue to improve and support that game for as long as they're able, based on their years of experience and expertise in game design and development.

But if you don't like what they're doing to the game, well, guess what? You can just change it.

I see no issue with game balancing. If the current winning strategy gets changed that can be annoying, yes; but you can get through Tactician with basically any build right now so I don't see why the outliers being nerfed is an issue. Surely we should be happy that game mechanics are nerfed so you don't feel like you're gimping yourself by not using the H bomb.
Why is balancing the game a bad thing? Should we not celebrate that they are still thinking about how the game plays optimally for everyone? It's not like you design a game to be fun, just to intentionally make it unfun. This seems like an excessively silly topic.

But mods disabling achievements, now that I agree with is just ridiculous. You can't add something to a game and give it value (achievements that requires X playtime), and then lock them away with another development design goal (mods). That's just... What? WHAT? I WANT A MOD THAT STOPS AUTO-ADDING TO MY SKILLBAR! I'M ANGRY! I'M AS ANGRY AS YOU GUYS ARE!

Going with that logic I can say- why to even nerf anything if already every build can go through tactician?

It's a player choice to either use most broken build available or not. Since there is no PvP here, nobody feels obliged to run only one strongest build because it does not affect any other player.

As I said, if someone want- he can just cheat for items, gold, APs, damage, everything and still beat everything in game easier and faster than "legit" player. How does that affect the legit player that decided he wants to role-play his Hydro/Pyro mage and don't give a shit it is not "best and min-maxed"? It does not.

Same like Reactive Armor combo did not affect any player- who told you to use it, and if you do- how does it affect anyone? In Co-Op? If one guy you play with in CoOp is min-maxer he will always just play second most broken build and result will be the same. Besides its a Co-Op ffs, not some multiplayer where you see kills, KD and damage done but other players. If you play co-op in RPG you play with friends anyway. Do your friends critize you because "ow, your build is too strong to play with us in cRPG game!". I guess not.

Balancing is ok as long as there is purpose in it. In Single player RPG there is not. I undestand bringing some underused skills/weapons to the level of good ones. But nerfing "strong" ones? Who does it affect? Only those who had fun with it. Player who did not use it- nothing changed for them.

For me, it's because it feels like artificially restrictive handholding. There's been plenty of examples of things in games where I could abuse them to take advantage but I simply choose not to because it would spoil the experience: that's not "gimping myself", it's simply taking responsibility. But once in a while I would like to use something to its full potential and when that potential has been removed it feels like someone has stuck an invisible barrier in the way. For me it's about freedom of choice, not a rigid set of rules that I must adhere to (or to try to game the system, which is even worse).

Because when all abilities are roughly around the same power level every ability is satisfying, rather than just a handful abilities or tactics which are disproportionally powerful. I could flip it around again and say "If every build can go through Tactician why care that it got nerfed?" but I think we both agree that this sort of argumentation is sort of purposeless and circular. I get why you don't want things to be nerfed, it's not fun when a tactic you've enjoyed becomes less effective because of mechanical interference; but I would advocate for appreciating it because overreliance on the tactic is barring you from enjoying all the other tactics. For example my playmate just picked up a bunch of lategame Hydro and Aero spells for the first time in 2 playthroughs, they are super rewarding to use and he giggles in delight half the time. He was very upset when Reactive Armour was nerfed into the ground.
That said I do think the RA nerf was way overhanded, it seems to be focuseda round reducing the damage potential with teamdamaging coupled with Guardian Angel and Shackles Of Pain which did indeed do levels of damage that were insane. But I think the AP and CD nerf was sufficient for it, the rest feels superfluous.

IDUNO I GET YOU? I don't at all agree though. Singleplayer balancing means that no one strategy homogenises the game and cheapens it. You can choose not to use them, yeah, but wouldn't you rather that you never even had to make that choice because EVERY approach was rewarding?



This I agree with, as I mentioned I think the RA being a set-up of roughly 350% of its single target damage in one turn was reasonably nerfed, it was over-nerfed. I don't think that set-up should be removed simply because it is strong, that would be somewhat misguided in my opinion.
But the freedom of -let's call it expression- in this sort of game is what makes it fun. The knowledge that you CAN do anything is what inspires you to try inventive ways to get around issues, whether it be elemental exploitation, teleporting, making barricades, etc. But that's exactly why I think that nerfing the patently strong options is a good thing. Now bear with me: to me everything is a set of values, of optimal usefulness per expended resource, which for example would be 'Damage Per Action Point'. What we all want is that the amount of DPAP is at a rewarding level, we want to feel satisfied by the choice we made in terms of the outcome: the DPAP. Ideally we want every strategy, whether it is swords, bows, staves, or telekinetically tossing heavy crates; to be DPAP equivalent.

Now let's take something like the Bone Widow. The Bone Widow had roughly twice the health of the Incarnate, twice the damage, and slightly less utility value (one TP skill, one self-buff\heal, and no magical armour). Now add on elemental affinity you can summon one for 2 ap, and if you're feeling fancy you can buff its magical armour for another single ap.

The incarnate, as mentioned, suffers some stat disadvantages but has the upside of being infused and having more utility skills depending on its infusion. You can not couple elemental affinity, so it is 2 ap. Infusing it with basic abilities is another single ap. At this point these things are AP equivalent, but the incarnate is suffering with considerably less attributes, for a mild increase in CC\damage abilities. Presuming it'd be Power Infusion as a general choice. The incarnate CAN be more powerful, but that requires additional AP and if you want to go optimal you have to invest source.

Unless the situation dictated otherwise, such as a complete lack off blood surfaces and a lot of electrical surfaces; the bone widow would probably be the way to go. It's tanky, hits hard, and can chase enemies around. You COULD use the incarnate, but why would you want to? What role does the incarnate fulfil that the bone widow does not?
Now if we nerf the bone widow to being about equal damage and health pre-buff to the incarnate, it is comparatively a much more situational choice. Do you need a physical tank\dps now, or would you prefer a magical dps and cc bot? Now obviously, in terms of flat numbers, the bone widow is worse. It is objectively not as good as it was. But compared to ALL the other DPAP values it is more in line, still situationally powerful and rewarding, but not to such an extent that other summons like the incarnate, the oil blob, necro blob, fire slug, artillery plant, etc are not worth considering.

So to ME all I'm seeing is that what was the optimal strategy is removed and replaced with multiple equally viable strategies, which INCREASE freedom of choice. Now with Reactive Armour I agree with you: it should be able to do the ridiculous damage the set-up suggests it should. But I believe these strategies should also be DPAP equivalent. Spending 3 turns hitting someone in the face to kill them, or spending 3 turns setting up a combo that in the final turn 100-0s them immediately.

So long self-important rant aside? I agree with you when I do? Sneaking is one I would agree with you on principle: sneaking being 4ap has reduced an exploitable cheese mechanic into a completely useless one that might as well be removed from the game (in combat, that is). But I suppose the distinction I'm trying to make is that I think something like sneaking is DPAP weak, but instead of wanting it restored to its DPAP overpowered state: I would rather have it rebalanced to be DPAP equivalent. I think freedom of choice is only removed when the DPAP is above or below the average and thus incentivises or deincentivises you to play in certain ways and if the difference is great enough that feels intrusive. To me this goes both ways. In the end I'd rather have a game that makes me never feel the need to restrain myself from a strategy because it is too powerful, or avoid one I would otherwise enjoy because it is simply worth my time when there are strategies that require less effort but give a sufficient amount of satisfaction.

In the end I do principally agree with you but I have yet to see a single change in this game that felt so intrusive it made me not enjoy a playstyle. RA is still strong, like, very strong; alas in different scenarios. Bone Widow is probably still the best early game summon you can get, and only falls off when you get the
So that amusement aside... I don't think there's anything to complain or worry about? Once telekinesis warfare gets nerfed though I'll probably grab the pitchfork. But ultimately I'm glad the overpowered combinations get nerfed because in the end I want to play a game where I can pick any wing of an archetype and feel rewarded using it, rather than think "Oh, I don't really want to play with magical DPS when physical DPS is just plain better..." (And if some bumblebutt comes in here saying int characters don't output damage I'll get physically violent.)

It all seems good to be, which is why I find this whole topic silly. I've yet to seen a single balance change that makes the game less enjoyable, though I have to say I am eagerly awaiting the balance changes in the third wave, because rangers could use a slight buff. Mages could use a slight scale down, and the warriors getting some more early\mid game love would be fine. Besides, if you want to unleash all the power in the world you can always go see the

I feel this more or less sums up why I'm not on board?
(I wrote all this stuff because I have an exam and I am procrastinating, I'm sorry. )

Question for ANYONE defending nerfs:

If you had literally GodMode and one hit killed every single creature in every single single-player game you've ever played. Would you consider these games fun? Would you be playing these games?

If you answer no to any of these questions, your post is most likely meaningless.

Don't you mean defending NOT nerfing?

So anyone who does NOT like godmode and one-shotting things falls under this category, and their posts are meaningless?

At CatR: I completely and wholeheartedly agree with your post of incentives and choices.

I agree with this line of thinking.

Absolutely false. Abilities are satisfying to use when they are actually satisfying to use, not when everything is crippled to the same lowest common denominator. It doesn't matter how balanced things are versus each other if they ALL feel like shit to use.

When we cast most magic in this game we feel painfully underwhelmed because most of it is some combination of too much AP, too little damage, too small of an AoE, too long of a cooldown, or friendly fire making it basically unusable outside of LW play. You could delete physical from the game, magic is the only thing left to use, and it would still feel like shit to use.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the average value of the ability already being at a level you are satisfied with is a possibility, making outliers in tone with the average has no bearing on the average being satisfying. We could set an arbitrary level of what we could consider satisfying DPAP, let's say Barrage with Elemental Arrows, it's 4AP for X amount of value. From here-on every ability will be balanced around the principle that every AP is worth 1\4th of an X.

You can change this X/4 to anything that is satisfactory to you, whether it is 1 damage at level 20, or 10 000 damage at level 1. Whichever you want to use as an example, whichever you think is personally satisfying. Unless you mean satisfaction can only come from comparative increased value. That X/4 is your bread and butter, but it is only satisfying to use an ability if its DPAP is above 1\4th of X. In which case I can but suggest that there has yet to be a nerfing of source abilities, which would be your source of such powerful DPAP abilities.

After all we are dealing in subjective and relational properties.

I shall have to get back to you on that since I have all the concentration of a carrot. I'll start off with the amusing bits but right now my response is a slightly underwhelming "argh".

I feel Larian should do their best to balance the game. Since released, we are now down to balancing what is there, you can't make major systems changes now. We can as alluded to, go in and make a change to whatever we like in terms of skills.

If they don't enjoy having a free pass through games due to godmode and the likes, it essentially means they shouldn't argue against nerfs to bring the game into balance.



Yes. You cannot argue against nerfs that resolves issues that trilializes the game by saying it's a single player game, while at the same time not enjoying Godemode (something that trilializes a game). It's completely hypocritical.

Yes, but someone who answers no to both of those questions is not a hypocrite, so I think you need to re-read your post where you ask that question.

You only need to ask the hardcore playerbase

You say that like anyone should use the story characters or care about the petty in fighting the game tries to force