Let's Talk: Game Difficulty

[EnjoyTheJourney]

Dungeon scaling and difficulty settings cover the same basic need in the game. They are redundant or at the very least create a large overlap in what they accomplish.

That fact that it is harder to run a full group on the same difficulty than it would be to solo it means not only is it redundant, the scaling pushes things to far on one side of the spectrum.

1. Different difficulty settings allow for a significantly different gaming experience, for the same mission, as mobs (and traps) have will different characteristics.
2. Dungeon scaling for team size allows teams of various different numbers of players to have a roughly equivalent level of challenge, for any given level of difficulty selected -- at least, the level of difficulty across different team sizes will generally be more equal, when scaling is implemented moderately well.

These are not the same things.

It is not possible to remove either dungeon scaling or difficulty level and still give players the same level of flexibility to choose the kind of gaming experience they prefer. This would also apply to teaming situations, incidentally, so consider carefully before arguing that dungeon scaling and difficulty settings are "redundant", and that one or the other should be removed from the game.

Dungeon scaling means that a team leader can put up a LFM and specify a difficulty setting in advance, then let team size settle wherever it settles, and go adventuring. The team leader can pre-specify the difficulty, and the dungeon will adjust to team size, rather than putting a team leader in the position of trying to make a judgment about the appropriate difficulty, based on team composition. Also, if you're thinking of joining a team, knowing the anticipated level of difficulty in advance can be helpful (at least for more casual players), as a player may feel they're ready for normal, but not for elite.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

I think the reason that Cal isn't giving you evidence is that its a complicated weave of dependencies.

Dependency 1 -> Certain classes are easier to solo than others. Typically these are ones with crowd control and self-healing capability

Dependency 2 -> The other classes are dependent upon the easier to solo classes (IE melees dependent on divines etc)

Dependency 3 -> By making a dungeon easier with a smaller group, you are actually providing a disincentive for soloable classes to add other players. Because these character types are the cornerstone of a traditional group, you lower the total number of groups you can form.

I'll give an example, on our last TR the guy running the cleric lost interest at level 16. Our group up until that point had been 3 barbarians and 1 cleric. We ended up having to use hirelings the rest of the way to 20. This was because we weren't willing to wait around for clerics. To offset the fact that we had a hireling, we typically kept the group size to 4 or 5 to lower incoming damage slightly.

You're establishing a key part of the reason for why there is a problem.

But, this doesn't come anywhere close to establishing that there is no solution other than to abolish dungeon scaling.

[Cyr]

Since we are talking Dungeon Scaling...

Difficulty settings without dungeon scaling provide a known difficulty factor which only decreases as you add people to the party. With dungeon scaling the incentive for grouping is strongest with the worst/newest players and weakest with the best/experienced players.

This provides another one of the upside down incentive/dis-incentive curves involving dungeon scaling as it decreases the quality of pick up groups (which are vital to new players understanding of the game and likelyhood of staying with the game) which of course is the opposite of what you want a new player to experience.

It also turns out that because of dungeon scalings design that their is an even stronger dis-incentive for experienced groups to accept new players. Most times this extra player actually is worse then picking up no one at all. So even when more experienced players group they have a stronger disincentive from grouping with new players then normal.

[ArcaneMelee]

Dungeon scaling and difficulty settings cover the same basic need in the game. They are redundant or at the very least create a large overlap in what they accomplish.

That fact that it is harder to run a full group on the same difficulty than it would be to solo it means not only is it redundant, the scaling pushes things to far on one side of the spectrum.

1. Different difficulty settings allow for a significantly different gaming experience, for the same mission, as mobs (and traps) have will different characteristics.
2. Dungeon scaling for team size allows teams of various different numbers of players to have a roughly equivalent level of challenge, for any given level of difficulty selected -- at least, the level of difficulty across different team sizes will generally be more equal, when scaling is implemented moderately well.

These are not the same things.
...

I agree with Aashrym. You're right, they're not the same things. That doesn't refute the opinion that they cover the same need, nor that they are redundant.

Difficulty Settings adjust the difficulty of the quest. So does Dungeon Scaling. It's my opinion that Dungeon Scaling does a poor job of it, as I've never once experienced Quest "A" on normal the same way solo that I do in a full group.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

Since we are talking Dungeon Scaling...

Difficulty settings without dungeon scaling provide a known difficulty factor which only decreases as you add people to the party. With dungeon scaling the incentive for grouping is strongest with the worst/newest players and weakest with the best/experienced players.

This provides another one of the upside down incentive/dis-incentive curves involving dungeon scaling as it decreases the quality of pick up groups (which are vital to new players understanding of the game and likelyhood of staying with the game) which of course is the opposite of what you want a new player to experience.

It also turns out that because of dungeon scalings design that their is an even stronger dis-incentive for experienced groups to accept new players. Most times this extra player actually is worse then picking up no one at all. So even when more experienced players group they have a stronger disincentive from grouping with new players then normal.

To the extent this is true, and it makes good sense that this would be true, dungeon scaling can be effective at promoting grouping when it's not strongly sensitive to the number of players in a team (ie: not zero, but not a strong effect). That would mean a player doesn't need to be very good to be a "net contributor", on balance, even when they're relatively new to the game.

When setting a scaling value for each extra player, there are plenty of choices that could be below the current scaling value, while still above zero.

Edit: I don't know if that's regarded as a problem, but lowering the scaling value would predictably lead to teams of experienced players more frequently blowing through just about any content at top speed.

[rkreutz]

Turbine will never be able to 'fix' dungeon scaling in the way, that it actually NOT encourages to rather play solo than in a grp. EVEN IF they would get it done at some point, the moment they add new stuff (i mean effects or pre's that do not yet exist), it will be broken again.

If u cant get something right nor fix it, get rid of it. And im am one of those that profit of dungeon scaling alot, cos it enables me to 'easily' solo (with hire) elite stuff (when there are no earth/air ellies).

[Aashrym]

1. Different difficulty settings allow for a significantly different gaming experience, for the same mission, as mobs (and traps) have will different characteristics.
2. Dungeon scaling for team size allows teams of various different numbers of players to have a roughly equivalent level of challenge, for any given level of difficulty selected -- at least, the level of difficulty across different team sizes will generally be more equal, when scaling is implemented moderately well.

These are not the same things.

It is not possible to remove either dungeon scaling or difficulty level and still give players the same level of flexibility to choose the kind of gaming experience they prefer. This would also apply to teaming situations, incidentally, so consider carefully before arguing that dungeon scaling and difficulty settings are "redundant", and that one or the other should be removed from the game.

Dungeon scaling means that a team leader can put up a LFM and specify a difficulty setting in advance, then let team size settle wherever it settles, and go adventuring. The team leader can pre-specify the difficulty, and the dungeon will adjust to team size, rather than putting a team leader in the position of trying to make a judgment about the appropriate difficulty, based on team composition. Also, if you're thinking of joining a team, knowing the anticipated level of difficulty in advance can be helpful (at least for more casual players), as a player may feel they're ready for normal, but not for elite.

It should be easier to complete a quest with more players than with less regardless of he difficulty level and right now that is not necessarily the case. Having multiple options for soloing would still exist without dungeon scaling. They would just be more difficult than they are now and should still be possible to complete with appropriate skill and gear.

Right now dungeon scaling provides incentive not to group and can provide incentive no to add new players to groups. Either way both systems make the quest easier, hence the redundant / overlap comment.

Reducing dungeon scaling might be an alternative to removing it as well. There is no need to make large change if it is possible to change in smaller increments to measure how successful the changes are.

[morticianjohn]

I agree that dungeon scaling and difficulty settings are redundant.

Casual should be solo friendly
Normal can be solo friendly
Hard should be beneficial to group
Elite should be extremely challenging to solo

I wouldn't propose removing dungeon scaling if it would make the quest unplayable for soloists or small groups but especially for hard/elite difficulties there should be incentive for grouping.


edit:// kind of a subject change. I know this has already been discussed but I've been working on quite a few different toons. I've had experience with all classes what has really frustrated me is on my ranger life for one toon how impossible it seems to get xp at a decent clip. Just leveled 2 (2nd life) TR's. The one I started with first and had a huge head start was my ranger who is still lvl 17. My PM leveled 2x as fast and is already capped again. It is very frustrating to get on my ranger hoping that I see someone running quests for xp seeing how difficult (and time consuming) it is to solo on this toon.

I was thinking about pally for the 3rd life but seeing how much more XP I'll need to get back to 20 I think I'll go with an easier life next. Pally, barb, fighter, monk, rogue are going to have to wait for now as I want it easy next life.

[Cyr]

I agree that dungeon scaling and difficulty settings are redundant.

Casual should be solo friendly
Normal can be solo friendly
Hard should be beneficial to group
Elite should be extremely challenging to solo

I wouldn't propose removing dungeon scaling if it would make the quest unplayable for soloists or small groups but especially for hard/elite difficulties there should be incentive for grouping.

Another non-trivial issue with dungeon scaling is the large jump in difficulty when it no longer applies leads to feelings of frustration and rage quittting...also known as the original desert epics effect on new players.

Basically players are just not used to mobs being able to hit their uber 55 AC or do enough damage in one fight to require lots of healing during it. Dungeon scaling distorts people's views of their builds in very damaging ways when they hit situations where it no longer applies it is like hitting a wall.

As such I think it is far better to just kill the mechanic entirely. Even a brand new player can run korthos quests on casual.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

A scaling function that looks like the left hand side of an inverted "U", in which the scaling value of the next teammate joining falls as team size increases, would seem to help offset the added difficulties of coordinating as a team gets larger.

This would lead to the biggest increase in mission difficulty when moving from solo to two players (but still below 1), the second biggest increase when moving from two to three players, and so on, so that the sixth slot can safely be given to just about anybody, with less risk that they'll hurt the team.

This sets up team leaders with an incentive to pick their second and third teammates with some measure of care, and to be willing to take just about anybody as their last team member. That would probably speed up team formation, as the exact characteristics of whomever fills that last team slot become less important. Newer players will have an easier time finding that last team spot, even if they might have trouble getting the second or third team slot offered.

[Riggs]

What are your thoughts on the overall difficulty of DDO? Sure, we offer difficulty choices, but do you find yourself in a postion where even Normal difficulty feels too much like hard?

If so, do you associate this with a given level in the game (e.g. 10+) or do you think there is just too much inconsistency throughout?

What's the right balance of challenge vs success for YOU? Do you expect to never fail when playing Normal - or would that simply bore you?

I'm raising this subject for a few reasons. I think a lot of people expect that when it comes to an MMO, if you put time in you must get progress/reward out of it - and that failure is just plain bad. Spending 45 minutes into a quest only to fail can be very frustrating.

We have been accused (and perhaps there's truth to this) that we've been balancing the game for the uber-player. Are you finding this to be the case? It seems like a couple years ago the salient message from the community was 'enough with the easy button already!'

Would love to know your thoughts on this. Feel free to reference specific quests.

Have not read all 27 pages yet, and given the vacation of the OP, decided to wait before looking at it, a couple quick points.

Low levels used to be way harder. Elite Kobold Warriors in Waterworks could wipe a party, sometimes on normal they could really mess things up for weaker players. This is just one example, Gwylans boss rooms also were no joke on elite.

Then they game became tuned differently. Low levels have become stupid easy. High levels are tuned to pretty much require multiple TR with all epic gear to be effective.

And when I mean stupid easy - I really mean stupid. There is a massive amount of players now that get to high levels not realizing how bad they are because the low levels are so bloody easy now any moderately well geared character with some pots can solo their way up through elite through to around level 15ish before really having to break a sweat.

Boat buffs are awesome - but they should not be required for high level content, and also make low level content even more trivial and stupidly easy.

A comment made not long ago in another thread about how often people die was that Korthos has the most deaths - well yeah a completely brand new player with no gear and no skill and no knowledge of the game is going to die a lot - and korthos is a pain in the A%$ to run - Misery's Peak is f-ing long and irritating. Doing it on a non-str character with no pots is really a Misery to do. And who ever thought that - like Prey on the Hunter - spending 30 minutes running down 3000 long corridors that you have to be CONSTANTLY JUMPING to avoid getting CONSTANTLY caught on the terrain was a good idea? It. Really. Is. Not.

That aside - the game really should get a bit more difficult again as you get past level 4 at least. The difference between then and now was...well less players for one which I guess is the overriding factor...but when you saw a level 16 character, generally you knew they would be reasonably skilled just in having gotten to the level cap because a lot of the content required an actual build and some skill.

Now most content does not - and it shows in all the low skilled, poorly built characters that can be seen running around - and who complain about not getting into raids because they cant understand how people can reject them even though they got all the way up to level 18 now didnt they?

Other - Amrath is like 5-10 levels more difficult than quests one level lower. Yet the XP is not different?

-The Lord of Blades raid is like 6k base xp - huh? Why are ANY level 20 quests, and especially raids - such terrible xp for the level? There are like 50 level 8-12 quests that give MORE xp than level 18-20 quests AND raids - how in any world of thinking is this considered balanced? (And no I am not asking to go and nurf more low level quest xp).

-Kensai is a really boring Pre to play considering what everyone else has. A 'dps' Pre that not only doesnt come close to a barb, but might as well not exist compared to a Frenzied Bezerker is just a waste really. A +3 multiplier to crits on top of a 70+ str, vs +6 damage and seeker 6 bonus...so one crits for +36 damage with a greataxe, the other crits for + THREE HUNDRED damage, and 6d6 viscous completely beats +4 damage from weapon specialization. Yeah that is balanced.

-Too many stacking sources of everything now. You should not require 20-30 more str, or 40 points more of ac to go from level 19 content to level 20 content. Or an eardweller, + epic spell boosters + 6 past lives to land spells or do as least good damage.

-I crafted a Trap the Soul hp item just before starting to run challenges - only to learn that high level monsters in challenges are immune to even more stuff than on epics it seems - I want my ingredients back. And what this game needs was more blanket immunities?

-AC and epics - I am sure it has been raised 20 times somewhere in the thread, and 100 times more on the forums - but that is because it is a really stupid issue. As I said - the difference between what works on level 19 content and level 20 content should be different yes - but not 40 points different. Grazing hits on a 13 AND needing apparently a 100 ac to avoid hits is completely absurd.

And despite what a lot of people seem to think about pajama wearing types - yes armor should give dr - but speed always adds to ac - which is why people stopped wearing plate armor once weapon technology made it less effective - because getting out of the way was better than standing in the way and only stopping part of the damage - an arrow/bullet in the chest still kills you even if it doesnt go ALL the way through.

Turbine is so frantically worried about high ac builds making 'content trivial', that ac has been nurfed repeatedly - like every other mod/update. I have old builds lying around that spend months grinding out gear and hitting what was good ac at level 16 - 50+ all the way up to 75 buffed up in one case - that I do not bother playing anymore - because they did less damage than the non-ac builds, and their ac doesnt really matter now anyway - so without a TR and completely new set of gear and a new build basically - they are only good for mid level content now - or going on raids where other people do more of the work - which is not a way to plan a build.

AC needs to matter - an 80 ac should be enough to stop almost anything - AND there should have been less sources of stacking AC - so it would not be as easy to get. And a 50 ac ALSO matters in a lot of content where it doesnt anymore. The fact that a cleric in +5 DT full plate and a raid shield of some type might as well be naked in anything over level 16 is again - absurd. If armor gave dr that would be something.

But saying that 45-50 ac is great in low level content, normal level 14-16 content - maybe, but utterly useless in higher level content is a problem with the game - a big problem, that causes all sorts of related balance issues and power creep issues and so on.

If a 35 fort save is better than a 20 fort save, if a to hit of 40 is better than a to hit of 30, if 500 hit points is better than 400 hit points, a higher AC should matter more than a lower AC also. And currently except for extremely high numbers - it does not.

-Khopesh and the Sos should have never been added to the game - the rule breaking extra crit damage has thrown the entire game balance out of whack since day 1 - and there are 100 different game issues around that fact alone. I heard a rumor that crits are changing somehow in the next mod. Maybe something is coming to help - but the simple fact is crit damage matters WAY too much in DDO.

While most of the players would scream bloody murder if Sos and Khopesh was reduced to their non-exploit x2 crit forms - it really would be good for the game to have OTHER weapons actually matter too. The khopesh was a longsword that gave a +4 bonus on trip attempts I believe, and whoever thought a greatsword that; does damage like a greataxe, crits like a rapier, and when made epic has TWICE the to hit bonus and damage, clearly did not think the situation through. The damage has been done for 5 years now, but it should be, and couple be - undone.

Things that add damage should add base damage, and stop making crits the massively overpowered thing they are now - like FB getting 700 damage with a Epic SOS - a fighter with a greataxe might get 200-max 300 damage all fully buffed and geared and songed up - so the fact that stacking a totally unbalanced single best weapon in the game with a totally unbalanced extra crit damage class is just plain stupid and has led to raid bosses with hundreds of thousands of hp and epic monsters with thousands of hp and casters now getting huge damage to compensate etc etc etc etc etc etc.

The problem is clear, fix it, deal with the massive outcry for a month, and rebalanced the game based on more realistic numbers and weapons and crits that are not so absurdidly overpowered as to be cartoonish.

The old Dieties and Demigods Thor was one of the toughest gods - he had 400 hp and an AC that would be the equivalent of like...35 today. While the amount of buffs and enhancements make those numbers laughable now - the fact is that was still based on a d20 system and a level 20 fighter with a +5 weapon - and while everything else has changed we still have level 20 melee types with mostly +5 weapons now.

The problem is that D&D 3.5 started adding in all sorts of crazy stacking effects, because I guess all the new kids wanted to see big shiny numbers, and suddenly you had power creep.

Now you can have a to hit/ac/str/whatever with; Enhancement, Competence, Insight, Sacred, Profane, Alchemical, Feat based, and various untyped bonus items that lead to numbers that essentially break a d20 system.

What we really need is less stacking types of bonuses, but bonuses that can get higher than +5 say. A level 8 weapon is +5. There is no real reason we should not have +10 weapons and armor in the game (which when a +10 shield is added would go a long way to address complaints about pajama twf's vs S&B builds). But we should not have +10 weapons AND 80 str characters AND 5 other types of to hit and damage and ac bonuses on top of that.

Anyway...so much for my quick post. Hope it actually gets read.

[nibel]

About scaling and difficulty: The reason many people think its outragerous to suggest someone to run casual is because everyone sees casual as something no "real" player should be doing. Except in very specific cases (Prey on the Hunter).

The difficulty settings lost their meaning. If you want to solo, is around the quest level, and have no idea about how the quest plays, Casual should be the perfect difficulty for you. If you have a party and is on the same conditions, Normal is good enough. Hard and Elite should be reserved to groups that know the quest. If someone is uber enough to solo Hard or Elite, good for him. That do not mean the game should tune down, so everyone can solo Elite.

And when you run Amrath with mobs hitting you for ~10 damage on normal solo, and ~30 damage on normal with a full party, you understand why everyone say that soloing amrath is "easy". It is. If you can self-heal and kill the mobs.

Maybe even add the option that casual runs never decay on quest xp (Optional XP decays as normal). Since most quests have 50% base normal XP on casual, there is still few reasons to farm it on a capable character/player. But this helps new players.

[Vormaerin]

The problem is that D&D 3.5 started adding in all sorts of crazy stacking effects, because I guess all the new kids wanted to see big shiny numbers, and suddenly you had power creep.

No, the problem is that that this is a computer game, not a table top game. A table top game was often 4-6 hours a week, maybe twice that if you were really hard core? That amount of time in an MMO is considered extremely casual.

Table top D&D tends to either be an open ended campaign, where advancement is pretty slow and you can take years to reach lvl 20 or it tends to be the "adventure path" scheme, where you get to lvl 20 comparatively quickly, but then you "finish" and start a new one with new characters.

Neither of those models work for a CRPG, though Turbine has tried with the TR scheme. Players want to get to lvl 20 and keep playing and improving your character.

Fact is, most of that "lvl 20" content is really lvl 21-25. And would be using "epic" rules in pen and paper. So, yeah, there is a big difference in tabletop, too.

Btw, the D&DG stats were a joke even in the late 80s, much less compared to the kinds of stats that such creatures have in 3rd edition.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

About scaling and difficulty: The reason many people think its outragerous to suggest someone to run casual is because everyone sees casual as something no "real" player should be doing. Except in very specific cases (Prey on the Hunter).

The difficulty settings lost their meaning. If you want to solo, is around the quest level, and have no idea about how the quest plays, Casual should be the perfect difficulty for you. If you have a party and is on the same conditions, Normal is good enough. Hard and Elite should be reserved to groups that know the quest. If someone is uber enough to solo Hard or Elite, good for him. That do not mean the game should tune down, so everyone can solo Elite.

And when you run Amrath with mobs hitting you for ~10 damage on normal solo, and ~30 damage on normal with a full party, you understand why everyone say that soloing amrath is "easy". It is. If you can self-heal and kill the mobs.

Maybe even add the option that casual runs never decay on quest xp (Optional XP decays as normal). Since most quests have 50% base normal XP on casual, there is still few reasons to farm it on a capable character/player. But this helps new players.

/unsigned on this.

This is punitive and pointless, in addition to being based on bad assumptions about why people do or don't do things, and about the general state of the game. Problems with XP progression and favor accumulation are a start at thinking through why this is an unhelpful suggestion.

Make teaming more attractive without reducing the ability of players to solo. Then you have a non-divisive plan that actually helps.

[nibel]

/unsigned on this.

This is punitive and pointless, in addition to being based on bad assumptions about why people do or don't do things, and about the general state of the game. Problems with XP progression and favor accumulation are a start at thinking through why this is an unhelpful suggestion.

Make teaming more attractive without reducing the ability of players to solo. Then you have a non-divisive plan that actually helps.

Why bad assumptions? That's exactly what DDO say every difficulty level is: Casual for soloists, normal for parties, hard for experient soloists or parties wanting a challenge, and elite for experienced parties wanting a challenge. By DDO's definition, Elite is not supposed to be soloable at level.

[hewimeddel]

I wrote a really long posting, but i seems to have been eaten by the forum-software.
But I feel like I have to write again, because all i see on this topic are "VIP-Postings" without any postings from casual gamers like me.

So here is my 2 cents in short:

"Casual" and "Normal" should be designed for newcomers like me, who just want to have a good time for 30 or 60 Minutes once or twice a week. My Paladin is now at level 13 and the difficulty is more or less right till now, I hope this will be untill level 20 when i will stop playing this game after completing the available quest-chains that don't involve raids or other "forced-grouping".
Right now I have to revert to "casual" more than in the early levels, but thats okay for me, cause every game should get gradually harder. (I can't say anything about quests above level 12, because i made it to 13 today.)

The Players that have run most quests more than 2 or 3 times should never be allowed to talk about "Casual" and "Normal" difficulty! This settings are not designed for these gamers and they do have a completely different approach to a game than me and most casual gamers.
I think these players have lost the right perspective to judge about "casual" or "normal", because any player that has run a quest just once before already has meta-knowledge which makes it easier next time, even with a completely new charakter without any transfered gear or platin. This is what "Hard", "Elite" and "Epic" settings should be for, but please don't destroy the game for me by changing the "normal" or "casual" settings to fit the needs of those "repeaters".

I like this game very much, because i can play most of the content without grinding and farming or even grouping. Don't alter the "normal" or "casual" settings in any way that changes this.

bye
hewi

[voodoogroves]

stuff

good points; mostly agree with just about everything

-Khopesh and the Sos should have never been added to the game - the rule breaking extra crit damage has thrown the entire game balance out of whack since day 1 - and there are 100 different game issues around that fact alone. I heard a rumor that crits are changing somehow in the next mod. Maybe something is coming to help - but the simple fact is crit damage matters WAY too much in DDO.

That's changing though (the importance of crit damage) and that's a good thing. I'd still rather see some weapon types getting their circumstance bonuses to tactical maneuvers (trip, etc.) and for those to be un-nerfed.

I'm fine with them being "the best". Something will be, has to be. Those are hardly breaking the game though.

While most of the players would scream bloody murder if Sos and Khopesh was reduced to their non-exploit x2 crit forms - it really would be good for the game to have OTHER weapons actually matter too. The khopesh was a longsword that gave a +4 bonus on trip attempts I believe, and whoever thought a greatsword that; does damage like a greataxe, crits like a rapier, and when made epic has TWICE the to hit bonus and damage, clearly did not think the situation through. The damage has been done for 5 years now, but it should be, and couple be - undone.

The SoS is one weapon - a rare and named quantity. The Khopesh is an entire class. I think it's entirely possible to approach both differently, possibly with the addition of some other best-in-class named weapons to compete w/ the SoS, etc.

The old Dieties and Demigods Thor was one of the toughest gods - he had 400 hp and an AC that would be the equivalent of like...35 today. While the amount of buffs and enhancements make those numbers laughable now - the fact is that was still based on a d20 system and a level 20 fighter with a +5 weapon - and while everything else has changed we still have level 20 melee types with mostly +5 weapons now.

The problem is that D&D 3.5 started adding in all sorts of crazy stacking effects, because I guess all the new kids wanted to see big shiny numbers, and suddenly you had power creep.

Your comparison is a bit off ... previous editions used a varying scale - the big deal in 3.x is that the scale became linear and (in theory) constantly progressing. Instead of to-hit tables in the middle of the DMG, we had a straight 1-20 scale and for things to matter, they need to be kinda sorta somewhere in that range. The numbers people can hit in DDO are nothing compared to what you can hit in optimized 3.5 PNP, so pen and paper players will kill 1e Thor much faster than DDO players ever could.

Now you can have a to hit/ac/str/whatever with; Enhancement, Competence, Insight, Sacred, Profane, Alchemical, Feat based, and various untyped bonus items that lead to numbers that essentially break a d20 system.

What we really need is less stacking types of bonuses, but bonuses that can get higher than +5 say. A level 8 weapon is +5. There is no real reason we should not have +10 weapons and armor in the game (which when a +10 shield is added would go a long way to address complaints about pajama twf's vs S&B builds). But we should not have +10 weapons AND 80 str characters AND 5 other types of to hit and damage and ac bonuses on top of that.

Anyway...so much for my quick post. Hope it actually gets read.

I think there's more than one way to skin that cat - but I'd rather do it with Turbine using their DM-control to put in selective items, etc. in small areas to bring things in line so we're still ultimately playing 3e (your shield example). Too much vanilla and you get what 4e looks like - which isn't the worst game in the world but it is a completely different feel.

[slimkj]

I think it's entirely possible to approach both differently, possibly with the addition of some other best-in-class named weapons to compete w/ the SoS, etc.

I'd love to see comparative attack rate boosts for other weapons (like 1.5x for a dagger, for example) but can see how that would just present a whole new set of balance issues.

Still, I can dream about a dagger wielding assassin that is both thematically pleasing to me and effective in game too, eh?

[Silverleafeon]

Aside from the fact that not everyone plays in a time zone with a lot of people, dungeon scaling is more than solo vs party play.

IMHO Dungeon scaling is more complicated than mere number of party members.

Dungeon scaling takes into account how powerful each party member is.

If a Favored Soul joins a group, the scaling will increase more than if a cleric hirling joins a group.

If an Artificer or a Wizard joins a group, the scaling will increase more than if a fighter joins a group.

This is an important factor to consider and helps balance classes in its own way.

[LucidLTS]

Most suggestions for promoting grouping seem to involve making life more difficult for soloists<snip>If dungeon scaling went away, though, there is still a punitive / exclusionary effect; eliminating dungeon scaling would annoy and drive away some players. And, "we don't offer dungeon scaling anymore!" wouldn't be a very effective marketing message, so new players wouldn't join to replace those who left.

Very true! And it's even worse than it seems - it would obviously drive away dedicated soloists, but it would also drive away the people who like or need to solo sometimes but who group at other times. Because people with a limited play time don't want to be invested in two games simultaneously (one game to meet their solo needs and a different one to meet their grouping needs) many would just switch to a game the offers both conveniently. It would be easy to end up with even fewer groups if punitive measures were adopted to discourage soloing.

Use carrots, not sticks, to promote grouping.

Because sticks drive people to other games, not to your unfilled LFMs.

There is no advantage in beating players into groups, if grouping isn't its own reward then it isn't worth saving. Turbine makes just as much money selling adventure packs to solo players as to group players (per player, I don't know numbers of each) and probably sells more spirit cakes and gold seal hirelings. And it's money that would be lost if solo players were discouraged.

Keep soloing reasonable and rewarding because soloing players can group at any time but lost players are gone forever.