Also give me back 50k of gold I lost because I couldn't save my x5 multiplier!
I accept looms as payment too
Doesn't seem like I was understood, so lets draw an analogy. Take the two popular games DotA and League of Legends. I don't think I need to outline the innumerable similarities between the two games, as they're so vast to even include the same developers. On the other hand, the games are seen as being polar opposites from each other. Some people would say it's depth, others would say it's the target audience, but whatever the case, they have two completely different balance philosophies. The goals in balance that each game attempts to achieve, look completely different. One is about allowing all characters to perform equally as well(or nearly so), in all situations, the other (DotA) is about giving specific, clearly defined roles(limitations) to heroes that cause them to be extremely ineffective when not played properly.
It's not that either one is necessarily unbalanced, it's that balance itself has a different definition. It is without a doubt the case that cRPG has changed not only what its goal for balance is, but really what the mod is supposed to be, to begin with. It's my understanding that cRPG began solely as a proof of concept (that you could, through the module system, link clients & servers to a website/database to create persistent characters) by chadz, without the intention (or perhaps expectation) of creating a relatively large, sustainable mod. It's for this reason that cRPG didn't actually have a clear goal or outline upon conception and has had to obtain one over time.
I'm not sure you can call it diversity when you have the same build but can now pick up a polearm! The wpf changes turned this mod into Skyrim where everyone can be anything they want! (agi, spammy, 2fast4u).
You can't deny that you haven't seen the true diversity that the mod originally intended when it was viable to go all str or agi with a limited penalty. It is what made this mod fun... Being able to come up with any build and see if it worked out there. Now you seriously bent over if you don't have some form of agility. Diversity was lost after the wpf changes, and I'm sure the community agrees.
Considering the fact that I would need a whole separate character to go from 2h to pole, yes, that's variety. More than that though, it was a way to incentivize, however small, full melee builds (to reduce the number of ranged, without directly nerfing the potency of their builds). I find it amusing that you claim a lessening of variety while making the statement "everyone can be anything they want!" The two ideas are without a doubt, incompatible; they're contradictions.
You say "all str or agi" but you couldn't go full agi (at least not without 13 shield skill). Full agi builds were complete garbage, while full str was among the best and most effective builds, in any setting. Also worth mention, is that you stated "with limited penalty," which necessarily implies an imbalance. If there is something to be gained by adding strength, which undoubtedly there is (and certainly was more to be gained than adding agi), then you have to lose something to sustain balance.
Furthermore, this experimentation and fun from the unknown, can only last as long as one remains ignorant of the mechanics that make up the system as a whole. So it then follows that the longer you play, even if things remain unchanged (especially when they do), the less you will naturally be able to experiment with and find enjoyment from.
You should also gauge the community on any crazy rebalances you are thinking of implementing. I still can't get over how you completely changed the game after the wpf changes... Too big of a change bro... We lost a big chunk of the community after that in NA1. I'm curious to see what pop lvls looked like on average the month before wpf changes and now.
When I think of balance, I think of a diversity of unique builds that each have their own strong points. Each player would be able to contribute to their team in their own way.
However, when I see mostly people with melee polearm builds because at the moment they are stronger and better than the other weapons available, this seems unbalanced to me.
As for the communicating between the player base and devs...what about the suggestions thread page for? Wouldnt that be a great place to look and see what the community wants changed or kept the same?
So like this...
http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/wpp-sum-and-cost-formula-rework%28includes-wm%29/msg891170/#msg891170 (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/wpp-sum-and-cost-formula-rework%28includes-wm%29/msg891170/#msg891170)
http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/possible-polearm-overhead-sweetspot-fix/msg832246/#msg832246 (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/possible-polearm-overhead-sweetspot-fix/msg832246/#msg832246)
http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/new-mechanic-dodge/msg817336/#msg817336 (http://forum.melee.org/general-discussion/new-mechanic-dodge/msg817336/#msg817336)
I like to think that for all the major changes, we have talked with the community about it. Even if you didn't/don't agree with the changes, the truth of the matter is that the vast majority do, or at least did at the time of implementation. In the case of the wpf change, I offered as much as I could to inform the players about what the actual changes would look like. I even provided the formulas so that currently used damage/character builders could be updated or altered so that the community could test things.
I don't think I've ever said balance is perfect, or that polearms are perfectly balanced with 2h or poles (although I'm not quite ready to say I agree, at least not that it's anything more than a select few polearm weapons, not the class.) But having a 55/45 split poles to 2h is certainly better than the previous 80/20, especially when you look at the EU meta, where they have always favored 2h more than NA. You can't forget that we have to balance for both EU and NA, and that the meta isn't identical and actually has a few key differences.
As to the actual definition of "balance" sure that sounds reasonable enough, but where are you drawing the lines? One sentence isn't concise enough to properly outline what balance should look like. The WPP/WPF change was a major change where we said "no, you can't have your cake and eat it" there have to be trade-offs for every build (much like the advent of the upkeep system, as well as the slot system). Yes we want each build to have its own strong points, but as you reach the extremes, those strong points get better and better, thus your weaknesses need to properly reflect that increase in potential that you've just obtained. This is an essential part of the balance philosophy that many people don't seem to agree with. Some people are DotA people, others are League people(Fuck LoL).
The suggestion/discussion sections allow us to see individual wishes/ideas, but they don't say much about the overall balance philosophy or goal, because so many player's opinions vary; each suggestion has a different balance objective in mind. Most suggestions on their own are fine, but when put into the crpg setting or when the effects are considered, wouldn't coincide with the balance objective we have in mind(still, it's not like there's a cRPG Mission Statement, so there is certainly some ambiguity).
tldr; You don't get a fucking tldr version.