It is easily substantiable, it is also however badly written. It's simple, the game must be balanced at all levels of play. Not that better players would be handicapped so that they are on the same tier as a new player, but that any player of similar skill should be at no disadvantage against any other. That is a better sense of balance than the one you postulate as the one true community for determining balance. The game exists for more players than you and your arrogant ilk. I get your rationale that a your experience has given you the opportunity to see more of the game, and are better able to refer to smaller portions of it and call upon that as an ultimate balance, this is however, incorrect. An understandable approach that allows for balanced gameplay for people who do not know every tiny bit of the game is crucial to a balanced game. 

Why? You're asking, I'll tell you, not related to balance, you alienate newcomers to the game. If it's inordinately complex, or has too narrow an avenue to success you're going to push people away from your community (which seems to be your ultimate goal). But related to balance...It's not your fucking game, anyone can play it, and it has to remain accessible on any level, so that any level of gameplay is balanced. Nor should it be an academic exercise for people to play it and feel as if they have an opportunity for success. 

Balancing a game at the pro level has nothing to do with alienating newcomers. Maybe their opinion, but it has nothing to do with their level of expereince, it has to do with the fact that they're just ussualy plain wrong and angry for a reason they don't fully understand. When you try to explain it to them, they don't accept it as advice ussualy, but get huffy and puffy and start throwing insults around just as much as the "pros" do around here.

Somone with a rational decent arguement, will never get dismissed from these forums.

It is acessible to people on any level. I played with my friend whos never touched the game and hes undefeated atm. You know why? Because he doesn't go crying to the forumns that the game is broken or make up arbitrary rules for why he's not very good. He tries to LEARN, and thinks rationally about things instead of with his temper. Often the "scrubs" that come to this forum VERY OFTEN fall into the latter.

A game balanced for a pro, is balanced for a begginner. Anyway you slice the bread, that is true. The fact the game may have a high learning curve, that you could argue. But personally, and statistically, alot of people LIKE complexity.

His RAM isn't as big as his ego.

No, No, No, No. If bad players can't counter something that is in fact perfectly counter-able, its not the game's problem. 

This is wrong ideologically, and impossible as a matter of practicality.

Ideologically, non-competitive players (non-high-level) have far less interest in fair chances or meaningful victories as they do in just having fun. Any kind of modification from a system that is perfectly balanced for high level play, that caters to the mid or low level players, will inevitably (and by definition) make the system worse. Because of this, it is best to balance to the highest level to achieve meaningful competition, and let the mid and low level play fall where it may, so that they can still have their fun whilst not harming the game. 

Practically, what you propose is impossible. Somehow the devs are supposed to anticipate every single level of competence and design a separate counter system for each one? You would need to have Tactic A which can be countered by B C and D if the players are good, but if the players are bad they can use E F and G, and if they are really bad they can use H I and J. Multiply by the number of DGs that might run into that tactic (8), and the number of tactics in the game (big number), and by the number of levels you wish to divide player competence into (arbitrary number). 

Thankfully, things don't work that way. There are tactics and there are counters, and if a certain player lacks the ability to use a tactic or counter, thats his problem, not the game's. 

The only newcomers that will be alienated are the ones we don't care about anyways. When I'm learning a new game I expect to be bad at first, but I expect to learn, improve, and eventually reach the top level of play and battle other experts. Players like that will not be scared away if they happen to lose their first few games and realize that they have much to learn about the game. However, players that expect to be awesome instantly will be quickly frustrated and quit. Should the game change to suit their unreasonable expectations? No. 

It does alienate newcomers if the threshold for having a balanced game is too far for someone to reach within what effort they want to devote to the game. It's not designed for a narrow community, or certainly shouldn't be.

Your example is cherry picked, a lot of people have come in and had found it to be varying degrees inaccesible. It has nothing to do with crying on the forums, it has to do with consideration for what they observe to be a problem, all of you claims are dismissive in this regard. "If you don't see the ultimate balance the game has, then you're a whining, crying little bitch" Is what I hear from a lot of you. And really the game hasn't been out for long enough for any sort of ultimate balance to have been found. Three months now? It takes time, and the game in this way hasn't even fully taken shape yet.

Once that nominal level of play is reached however, it needs to be balanced at every strata of gameplay within that for it to be balanced, not for a single portion of the community. If mechanically it's balanced, but practically it's not, that has no bearing on balance in the game? That makes no sense at all.

SoFFacet: It is a lot of work, it also takes time and feedback, but is not so difficult as to be practically impossible.

My ego is epic. My RAM, unfortunately, is only 4GB.

If someone has only a finite interest in the game, it shouldn't be that they are alienated from the game, it is, in fact, a game. If game balance is beyond that person's time or willingness to play, the game shouldn't be alienating for them, and in fact, provided there are players of a similar mindset, the game like that is imbalanced.

Not true either.  Consider a ninth Demigod who had an ability that fired a moderate-speed projectile at an targeted place on the ground while painting a huge bullseye on the spot.  This projectile if it hit any Demigod at the target location would kill it instantly.  Balanced?  Of course you say, because any good player would never get hit by such a move.  Perfectly counterable.  I would disagree.  Something so extremely powerful is not balanced simply because it can be countered by reflexes of steel.

Are u serious u don't agree with SoFFacet in this explicit point?

If the game is balanced for the "bad player", as he mention, there wont be advanced tactics for the expert players, I guess, at least.

Every game is based on counters, and developing strategies for others to counter, every single game in history. Taking out a strategy from a game when there is no need for the action is just plain wrong.

Its like saying you play chess but it is unneceptable for the opponent to use a certain opening against you (queens gambit lets say), because u just don't know how to counter it. Ban the opening, its to powerful, burn the manuals, reinvent the game, ahhhh, its the end of times, there is something I cant counter and I'm unwiling to learn how to.

Gzzz.

Yes I disagree that you should be balancing *exclusively* for the uber gosus.  Things that are imbalanced for the common player can be fixed without disrupting the "elite" gameplay.

It's not only about strategy.  If the counters are too difficult to execute for the average person then it's not a bad thing to make them more accessible.

No, it's not like that at all.

Could you give an example, please?

What u say is not easy to counter? Let me try to give an easy solution and than u say if its not easy enought.

And yes, it is the same as the chess example.

Instant kill moves are impossible to balance because they have to have such incredible drawbacks, inefficiencies, and/or unlikelyhoods. As such, what you are describing would be a problem of balance in general, not a problem of balancing to the highest level. 

For example, several years ago a certain spell in Guild Wars became bugged after it was changed during a patch. Specifically, if it resolved on the Guild Lord, it would kill him once its effect wore off (10 seconds later), consequently winning the match. It took 2 seconds to cast this spell, so it was technically counterable via interruption, but it was still imbalanced because its effect was insanely more powerful than any other 2s cast spell in the game. It was quickly fixed.  

Heart of Life...?

But yet it's still perfectly counterable.  You'd take no damage at all if you just moved out of the way.  It's not the game's problem, according to you.

That is an incorrect assumption that those who lose the most know the most about balance and such.

If i play a chess master, and myself knowing very little about chess, it does not AT ALL show that there are obvious flaws in teh game, or that there are cruel imbalances. It just means that the opponent is better.

You state that everyone wants to win, this is true. Why would anyone go into anything thinking that they want to lose? But just because you want to win doesnt automatically, or magically, give you the right to win. It doesnt mean you know more about anything.

Also, just because inexperienced and "noob" players make up the superior bulk of the player base, it DOES NOT mean that they deserve to make the standards for the game. Far from it! Again, take the chess game. If i changed the rules to suit me better than the chess masters, would we really be accomplishing anything?

The chess master has spent his own time finding the better strategies. He has experience with what is better, and what is not. Just because there are far more numerous people that are not masters, does not mean they will have the game changed to fit their wants.

The same applies to Demigod. Some players have spent time getting better, finding the better strategies, not pug stomping, or "noob" stomping. Some players have read forums, guides, etc. It is these players that deserve to say what is imbalanced. The players who actually KNOW about the game. Not the players at entry level, or the players who have records that are to the point of 3-50. Losing alot does not reflect imbalance. Just as winning a lot (records like 140-1) do not imply skill.

This is gettnig very tedious, I honestly feel like I'm back on the Guild Wars Guru forums. Anyways: just because something is counterable, doesn't make it balanced. Theres an element of reasonability here. Expecting people to be able to play at a certain level is reasonable. Expecting people to never make a mistake or the insta-die is not. 

every game has a learning curve. now, just for the record, steeper learning curves result in a harder game to get into, but usually result in a MUCH more lasting and fun game for veteran players. Examples anyone?

EVE

Starcraft

Warcraft

WoW

Guildwars (past versions, not present)

...and that is just a few genres...

Any of these sound familiar?

If the game is retardly easy for new players, that would generally mean that new players have a good chance at handling pro players. And lets face it, if that is the case, then how bad would matches be. Imagine a brand new Oak coming in to fight a veteran oak, and the veteran player cant kill the new oak, and vice cersa. How is that even possible?

Balance at all levels is absurd. How would you do it? Making it completely balanced for noobs to win against pro would essentially mean taking out "pro" level competition. Also it means that you take out the benefit for playing longer. So...again...how would you do it? I am honestly and seriously asking.

Exactly.  I love it when people come around.  And the reasonable level of play is the level of play you'd reasonably expect most of your players are playing at.

Hint: It's not the top 5%.  Think Bell curve.

chain foul grasp is my pet hate atm.

I don't see how its "coming around," I've made the very same argument in other games for years. Perhaps it didn't get communicated effectively here. The "reasonable" level of play is not the same as perfect play, but nearly synonomous with "high level" play. Also, it would help if you wouldn't leave out the last setence when quoting me. Expecting people to be able to play well in general in order to execute counterplays is reasonable. Expecting them to never make a mistake or they insta-die is not. 

it is annoying, and strong if you get caught in it, but it does not turn them into an auto-win team.

double beast is not game breaking in my opinion. so does double beast deserve to be permanatly banned from the game?

I do have a personally problem with foul grasp not triggering the invulnerability to stuns, this isn't a doubles issue, as it happens extremely often when paired up with rook/erebus/tb

Why?  It seems more reasonable to expect the level of play that a reasonable majority of the audience will possess.

Likewise.  Anyways I didn't do it because it didn't flow directly into the point I was making, so I left it out in the interests of readability.

But insta-death doesn't lose the game - you're acting like it would be the end of the world when it wouldn't be.  Besides, you wouldn't ever get hit by it, right?

But people, doubles, do they honestly break the game? and please back up your argument with some solid reasoning. please dont reply with "double regulus can instantly kill you with mines. That is overpowered."

if you cant figure out how to stop that from happening... ...oh boy lawl

EDIT: can we forget about the insta-death skill argument. That has no relevance on the OP...