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.
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.
