1) The game belongs to Larian. This means they can alter or change any part of the game as they see fit. If you don't like it, please seek life elsewhere without complaining and moaning ad nauseam.
3) Before you complain about alterations to the game or rule-set that don't suit you for one reason or another, consider the corollary: you get fixes and alterations to the game or rule set that DO suit you. You don't stand on a soap box and complain ad nauseam then, do you? Why not? Alterations that suit you are likely to not suit another group.
These arguments can be used by the other side, of which I consider myself one. So....
First, note that it was "complaining and moaning ad nauseam" that seems to have compelled the resistance changes in the first place. Despite "seek life elsewhere" being the weakest possible form of "argumentation" in the history of reason, we could say the same thing to those who complained about impenetrable resists.
Second, "before you complain about [mechanics in] the game or rule-set that don't suit you for one reason or another, consider the corollary: you get fixes......".
You get the point.
Fortunately, not all of your argument is hypocritical. You bring up something that I don't remember being brought up previously:
...consider the overall changes to the game as a whole...
That is sound advice.
With that out of the way, I consider myself on the "side" of "single player games don't require balance." I no longer consider this position tenable as it is stated in that quotation.
Single player games require balance. This has been well argued by people in this thread. So with that in mind, let me modify the position: "single player games don't require player sided balance changes."
And since most of the balance changes suggested on this forum seem player sided (as opposed to enemy/world sided changes), we are arguing against those potential changes.
Is that less controversial?
