I've been reading the forums for a few days now before deciding to invest in this game.  This is because I find the forums as a good indicator of the current status of the game (if not necessarily accurate).  Also, I've learned an important lesson from Hellgate: London (yes, I'm a 'survivor').

For those who don't know, Hellgate: London was a hybrid game put out by Flagship studios - a now defunct (to my knowledge) software studio that was headed by Bill Roper (Diablo, Warcraft) and some people (key people, according to him) he poached from Blizzard.

The game played like an FPS, but it had many of the RPG elements that people would associate with Diablo (and to a certain extent, WoW).  The game had been in development for a number of years, on grounds that they needed a proprietary software system to deal with randomization of 3-D (fps style) areas.

The problem was, it looked like shit.  To a great extent, it also played like shit.

But there was promise there, and many of us really wanted it to work.  In the end though, in large part, the players (!) killed the game.  And this is the cautionary tale I would impart on the Demigod crowd.

Let Stardock and GPG do their thing.

I'm sorry, but just.  Shut.  Up.  I'm sure your idea is totally awesome.  Write it down in a notebook, and if a month from now (when the problems are solved) if it still seems awesome and it looks like the devs are trolling for ideas, consider posting it.

Hellgate: London shipped with bugs.  A lot of bugs.  They had a day 0 patch as well, but I dare say HGL was less well tested and had greater connectivity problems than does DG.  There were a number of reasons for this: one they had, what seemed to be, a less good relationship with the publisher.  Another, they set a hard, promotional release date - Halloween (which, unlike christmas, only comes once a year).  Third, and perhaps most saliently, it was clear (in retrospect, at the least) that Flagship had serious financial troubles.  They were burning a lot of money, and it's not clear what the hell it was burned on - the proprietary randomization system they developed looked awful, and in many cases did not work (such as by creating a map where the entrance and exit were unconnected).

The trouble was, the dev team simply had too much to do.  Not only were they working on another game (lord knows why), they had to fix numerous problems within HGL itself.  On top of which, they kept releasing 'new' content (which takes time away from bug quashing) that players insisted they were owed.  Which became the problem.

If you give a mouse a cookie...

'\  The playerbase would not stop complaining.  Nothing the devs did could please everyone (which is always the case).  Highly vocal and aggressive factions kept demanding changes - which would in turn piss off the majority, and start an even greater firestorm.  New content that was released was half assed, and some problems present at launch persisted until the game died.  Devs were forced to take time away from fixing the game and making THE GAME to listen to various 'ideas' (most were "make me stronger" and almost none were new or unique) and make changes (or undo changes) that they were never able to make the game they intended.

Play the game you bought, or return it and code your own.  You ask five different people what their favorite food is (or for a particular flavor or ingredient), mix it together, I guarantee it's going to be gross.  Let the chef cook, or eat somewhere else.

Fortunately, there are quite a few differences between GPG-Stardock and Flagship/HGL.  For one, it seems that Stardock (from frogboy's posts) understands the on some level the problem of giving a mouse a cookie... which is good; Frankly everyone should WANT GPG to be able to finish and put out the game they intended to before trying to change it too much.  For another, it seems like they have a good relationship.  They also seem to have their shit together (it;s pretty bad when your bonus content dvd wont play in a dvd player).  Lastly, you have a fair bit more transparency here - that is to say, it's not hard to find out about the game (other than skill trees and such, but a bit of poking around will yield that too).  It was damn near impossible to find out anything of substance about HGL on their own website... which should have begged the question, what are you hiding?  A game sold entirely on a person's reputation for making Diablo 1 is also suspicious as hell, and it certainly isn't the selling point here in DG.  That's another very good difference.

So before the bitching and ranting about SP or new DGs or new game modes, ad naseum kicks up, please.  Shut up.  They KNOW.  Let them finish the game, and then talk about that.

On a related note, Balancing in DG is fine.  Because frankly, balancing should and often does mean Not being Balanced.

"Zomg wut?"

Are pistols, uzis, assault rifles, rocket launchers and grenades all balanced?  Absolutely not.  And in any game, there is no reason why they should be.  You might have a natural affinity for something (zomg badass!) but that does not therefore mean it should be all powerful.  Moreover, one who has skill with one of these should not therefore have skill in all of these.

Consider for example a Claymore (large, two handed sword) and a Stilleto (long, thin dagger).  Are these balanced?  Sure.  But there are a lot of considerations that must come first.

Claymore has good reach and a lot of brute force; a good direct hit will (let's assume) kill you.  But it's heavy, requiring a good deal of strength to wield.  It's also somewhat slow between swings, as well in each swing.  It's, by and large, not a thrusting weapon but instead a slashing weapon, so attacks are rather telegraphed.  Because it's two handed, defensive options can be restricted and a missed attack could leave the wielder open.

The Stilleto is light, fast.  It can pierce and do a fair bit of internal injury that will probably result in death (eventually, if not necessarily immediately).  It can also slash, although this lacks as much force as a good thrust.  It's one handed, allowing the wielder a variety of defensive options and maneuvars, as well as the option to add more force with a second hand.

So which is better?  It depends really.  A person with training in large swords can wield the claymore, understand its limitations, and work around them.  Against someone untrained in the use of a claymore or stilleto, he'll probably win (he should be nerfed!).  However, he probably wont be able to use the stilleto very well at first.  His training and fighting style and tactics are all wrong.  The same is true for someone trained in a stilleto.  They'll be able to target the vital points, dodge, parry, and look for weak points in armor.

A really big person probably wont fare well wielding the stilleto.  He'll swing inefficiently, using too much force and leaving himself open longer.  Because of his larger size and the smaller weapon, he'll probably overextend more when attacking.  In essence, the fighting style and the weapon do not match up.  Likewise, a smaller person probably wont be able to swing a claymore properly or even quickly.

How this applies to DG is simple - You are probably using the wrong DG (or else, need to learn a new style).  Because somewhere there is a mismatch.  You are not able to bring out the power of whichever DG you are choosing as a result, and going up against someone who is better matched with his DG... well, of course you get owned.  It's important to find which DG matches up to your style (or to change your style to match the DG) and then to practice; It's not something where you can simply pick what's "better" based on what people say on forums or who owned you on the web.  The 8 dg currently in game all play pretty differently, so there should be ample matches.  They have varying levels of micro management involved, direct and indirect combat, capacity to support, combine, act independently, and so on.

So rather than bitch about how some DG is clearly overpowered or needs to be nerfed, or this game needs better Balancing... look at your own playing first and do some analysis and hard thinking.  If you don't like hard thinking, maybe STRATEGY games are not for you.

TL;DR? - STFU and practice in SP more before getting owned online.  Also Hellgate: London was epic fail.