Player Character Balance

[GrantAnderson]

I would rather wait around for a healer/trapper then have a vapid game where everyone can do anything. There needs to be threats, but if you can just ignore traps and heal yourself it makes for a shallow experience. There is no wonder why this game used to be more challenging, fun and rewarding. The new generation of players are used to consoles and want instant gratification. They don't have patience, ability or desire to formulate tactics and use teamwork or strategy to defeat an encounter. Sadly this is the direction the entire game industry is headed.

I solo just about all the time (and not because I'm part of the 'new generation of players'; I started gaming on an Apple ][e, and it has been long and long since I played a console game ).

If you think soloing doesn't require at least as much tactics and strategy as grouping, I'm somewhat bemused. I grant that grouping may require more patience, particularly with the cat-herding that raids can become But part of the game for me is character design. Do I give up a capstone and spend two levels to gain Evasion? Do I take a level in Druid or Artificer so I have an extra lever puller? A level in Artificer or Rogue, and push my Int at the expense of other scores, so that I have enough cross-class skill points to be a competent trapper? What's the return on pushing the Short Sword linear with Kensei, Warpriest and Drow enhancements? (+12 to hit and damage and +1 to threat range seems nice, although I haven't even looked into whether they stack yet) There's plenty of strategy involved before you even set foot in an adventure.

[BigErkyKid]

I solo just about all the time (and not because I'm part of the 'new generation of players'; I started gaming on an Apple ][e, and it has been long and long since I played a console game ).

If you think soloing doesn't require at least as much tactics and strategy as grouping, I'm somewhat bemused. I grant that grouping may require more patience, particularly with the cat-herding that raids can become But part of the game for me is character design. Do I give up a capstone and spend two levels to gain Evasion? Do I take a level in Druid or Artificer so I have an extra lever puller? A level in Artificer or Rogue, and push my Int at the expense of other scores, so that I have enough cross-class skill points to be a competent trapper? What's the return on pushing the Short Sword linear with Kensei, Warpriest and Drow enhancements? (+12 to hit and damage and +1 to threat range seems nice, although I haven't even looked into whether they stack yet) There's plenty of strategy involved before you even set foot in an adventure.

While I agree that creating a "powerhouse/multitool" character or whatever you want to call it is an exercise of balance in principle, I think it has become much less of a challenge over time. In any case, my understanding is that those who want to solo should be able to bring hirelings to their questing. It is not as effective given the AI, but well it should still work.

Again, the issue of balance has been brought (I suspect) because of the monkcher and shiradi situations (I guess the monkcher one is the most outrageous). We all know of monkchers soloing FoT. It is clear (to me) that what arguably (for the majority of cases, there are very good melees out there, it is just much harder to pull) monkchers have the best DPS in the game, they also have the best defenses: evasion + damage avoidance through kiting. I refuse to accept kiting as some for of skill, it is not that hard at all.

These went on to multiclassing because that's the origin of those beasts and now it has derived to a discussion of whether good in all fronts characters should be allowed via game design. I see it as the natural progression of the discussion. I DO NOT think there is a right answer to that, it is a matter of how you like (or can) to play the game.

Some people prefer to have the lowest reliance on other people to get quests done, parties being mostly composed of equally self sufficient characters that perform very similar functions. You DPS, you self heal and you deal with traps (evasion or trapping or a combination of both). You may choose to do that as a caster, ranged or melee.

To me, that style lowers a lot the need of strategic interactions between members of the group and makes the game more boring. It seems that the game has moved in that direction. Yes, if you do incoporporate those elements of self sufficiency, people can still cooperate if they choose to do so. However, it becomes far less obvious how to interact meaningfully with other party members. In the absence of guidelines, people do it far less. I think this is a fact, that overall there is less interaction in questing between party members. If you don't believe me, think about this. When was the last time that:

1. Someone healed you.
2. You waited for someone to deal with a trap or did it yourself (for the group while they waited).
3. Casted or received NON group buffs (those that need specific targetting and are not just an externality).
4. Participated in an explicit group strategy (positioning, pulling, shield walls, whatever) with other party members.
(bring more if you come up with them)

Outside some specific quests, I fine myself engaging much fewer times in 1-4.

So when it comes to balance, the changes I would like to see are in the direction of increasing group reliance and the benefits of grouping, not further decreasing them. Some builds are jacks of all trades and they sure do that very well. I wouldn't want more possibilities in that direction. This is a personal opinion and taste and I am entitled to have it.

[MonadRebelion]

I'm just going to rant here. Sorry that this isn't more composed.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of balance. My view of how character design should work is informed by my 20+ years of playing pnp dnd. If balance means making it so that barbarians don't really need healers, I'm against it. If balance means making pure class characters as powerful as finely tuned multiclass characters, I'm against it. In my view, characters that aren't based on archetypes that are supposed to have legendary skills at x should not be nearly as good at x as those characters. Moreover, I think the game should have moments when the disparity between these characters is evident and makes a real difference concerning what happens and what is even possible for a character/group without a specialist in x. I don't think there is a problem with pure class characters being viable in ee content. I think they are viable. I think the so-called viability problem is more about people having self-esteem issues when they see their characters being out preformed by multiclassers. I'll grant that multiclass characters are more powerful than pure class. It can still be true that when a pure class character enters a quest with multiclass characters they can contribute. I think it's fine for multiclass characters to have more overall survivability and power in general. Multiclassing to reduce weaknesses and enhance power has always been a part of dnd. The only complaint I have about multiclassing is that there is nowhere in the game where a pure classer's skill in x really outshines a multiclasser's and has a real impact on outcomes and possibilities. For example, there really is no place in the game where rogue mechanic show's he/she can do something no one else can. In my view, since this is a dnd based game, someone should be able to spend a lot of time perfecting a trap focused rogue and have that effort rewarded. That particular rogue should be able to do things with traps no one else can. If there are issues of 'balance' in the game that need to be addressed, I'd say it has nothing to do with dps and everything to do with how easy it to self heal, how easy it is to bypass traps, and how amazingly effective a small number of spells are against most of the environment (it's great that necro's are weak against undead, that fire sorcerers are weak against fire-based creatures, and I think we need this spread out more generally).

[GrantAnderson]

Again, the issue of balance has been brought (I suspect) because of the monkcher and shiradi situations (I guess the monkcher one is the most outrageous). We all know of monkchers soloing FoT. It is clear (to me) that what arguably (for the majority of cases, there are very good melees out there, it is just much harder to pull) monkchers have the best DPS in the game, they also have the best defenses: evasion + damage avoidance through kiting. I refuse to accept kiting as some for of skill, it is not that hard at all.

Soloing at-level content intended for 12 players isn't something I'm keen on either. (Although I do like going back with a Epicked character and soloing low-level raids, because the odds of me playing many raids at-level are very small indeed.)

These went on to multiclassing because that's the origin of those beasts and now it has derived to a discussion of whether good in all fronts characters should be allowed via game design. I see it as the natural progression of the discussion. I DO NOT think there is a right answer to that, it is a matter of how you like (or can) to play the game.

You (usually) pay for versatility in power, and I think that's fair enough. In theory, for example, taking two levels of Rogue or Monk in your otherwise-pure-class costs you your capstone, and that should be a meaningful cost.

So when it comes to balance, the changes I would like to see are in the direction of increasing group reliance and the benefits of grouping, not further decreasing them. Some builds are jacks of all trades and they sure do that very well. I wouldn't want more possibilities in that direction. This is a personal opinion and taste and I am entitled to have it.

You're welcome to your personal taste, just as I have mine. But if you get your way (increased group reliance/forced grouping to finish quests), that makes my style of play less fun. If soloing is a reasonable way to play, people who enjoy grouping still can and will group. I don't think people are that confused about how to behave in groups.

[Satyriasys]

I solo just about all the time (and not because I'm part of the 'new generation of players'; I started gaming on an Apple ][e, and it has been long and long since I played a console game ).

If you think soloing doesn't require at least as much tactics and strategy as grouping, I'm somewhat bemused. I grant that grouping may require more patience, particularly with the cat-herding that raids can become But part of the game for me is character design. Do I give up a capstone and spend two levels to gain Evasion? Do I take a level in Druid or Artificer so I have an extra lever puller? A level in Artificer or Rogue, and push my Int at the expense of other scores, so that I have enough cross-class skill points to be a competent trapper? What's the return on pushing the Short Sword linear with Kensei, Warpriest and Drow enhancements? (+12 to hit and damage and +1 to threat range seems nice, although I haven't even looked into whether they stack yet) There's plenty of strategy involved before you even set foot in an adventure.

Now if you can solo whilst demonstrating teamwork I'll be impressed. Also soloing is bad for the game, hurts the lfm and general community/life of ddo.

[knockcocker]

Also soloing is bad for the game, hurts the lfm and general community/life of ddo.

That's a bold statement. Do you have any proof of that at all?

Soloers spend money in the store too.

[WNxDaCraw]

That's a bold statement. Do you have any proof of that at all?

Soloers spend money in the store too.

They are constantly trying to draw in new players. logging in and only seeing a few lfm's just makes me think the game is dieing and why would I pay for a game that so few people play. time to check out the next mmo

[RapkintheRanger]

Splashes have always been used and popular, and not really a problem imo. It's not really a problem either that some builds are better than others. What IS a problem is that a few distinct combinations of abilities produce characters which are EXTREMELY A LOT more powerful than all other builds, even very similar ones.

Nerfs/adjustments like the 1-4 suggested above by vengfarga could help trim the top and make alternatives viable, and from the Dev posts here I am hopeful that something like that will happen.

frankly, i hate all of the proposals to make characters crappier (AKA nerfing)

They do not make "alternatives viable" they make better builds crappier. And crappier builds are less fun to play for some people and that is why some people avoud them. Forcing everyone into crappier builds does not make DDO a better game.

And lets consider shall we. The new firepeak raid, runs pretty smoothly with a couple monkchers grabbing aggro and separating dragons and a couple people with the ability to clear trash fast, ive got a dozen completions. Without those builds in the mix, the raid often fails. 3X in a row i tried to help a mishmash pug of first lifers, pure builds, barbarians, and whatnot through, fail fail fail.

not fun.

Try taking down a 300K HP mob when all of your damage boost abilities are gone. Just do 60HP of damage 5000X and you will be there.... boring.

If you take the time to look for synergies in this game, what we find out is that you can build an effective character and then it will get destroyed by nefrage.



Next for nerfing: i recon war-forged should not be able to cast as they are just machines.



This entire thread just annoys me

[Faltout]

I'm just going to rant here. Sorry that this isn't more composed.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of balance. My view of how character design should work is informed by my 20+ years of playing pnp dnd. If balance means making it so that barbarians don't really need healers, I'm against it. If balance means making pure class characters as powerful as finely tuned multiclass characters, I'm against it. In my view, characters that aren't based on archetypes that are supposed to have legendary skills at x should not be nearly as good at x as those characters. Moreover, I think the game should have moments when the disparity between these characters is evident and makes a real difference concerning what happens and what is even possible for a character/group without a specialist in x.

And that's exactly what "balance" is. Balance is not having everyone do everything. Balance means that when you place weight on the pros of a build, you place equal weight on the cons. Because right now the game is like:
Uber characters (4 builds) <vs> uber mosnters <vs> Normal characters (many builds/skilled players + 4 builds/non skilled players) <vs> Uber monsters <vs> Poor players (rest of the builds/non skilled players)
See, skilled players should be able to join an Elite run and use what they're skilled at without having to resort to one of the overpowered builds to beat the uber monsters. And of course uber monsters can't be gimped as long as 4 uber builds get advertized a lot. Poor players should just choose a lower difficulty.

[RapkintheRanger]

Now if you can solo whilst demonstrating teamwork I'll be impressed. Also soloing is bad for the game, hurts the lfm and general community/life of ddo.

Soloing is good for the game. people learn, spend money enjoy themselves.

waiting around for a group to fill then dealing with people who may or may not be people you want to hear talking ... less fun


AND this is what bugs me about this thread.

Lets nerf people to **** so the only way they can complete is in a group with other **** characters struggling along.

Whatever DDO: Nerf this thread not my character.

If you want to buff up other options go for it, but leave my functioning characters alone.

[Satyriasys]

That's a bold statement. Do you have any proof of that at all?

Soloers spend money in the store too.

It's a no brainer really. How long are noobs or non power gamers going to play when they cannot find a group? What would be the point in guilds or other classes for that matter? How long are vets going to stay interested when they can do everything themselves? Sure playing in God-mode is fun! but it gets boring very fast. People are going to stop spending money or time on their characters if there is no one else to play with. This is an mmo not a single players rpg with an epic story and cutscenes to keep one interested, even those lose their re-playability quickly. MMOs stay entertaining simply because of the community and grouping. Have you ever played an MMO on a private server by yourself? It's not very fun.

This is Dungeons & Dragons and the premise of the whole game is based around grouping and complementing each-others archtypes.
When traps can be ignored what is their purpose? Why not just remove them? further simplifying the game. Why have Rogues at all when there are better dps options? When everyone can self heal what is the point in Divines? They end up being weak Arcanes and their greatest strength is rendered worthless why not just remove them? Tanks are also all but useless in this game with the exception of a few raids. One of the Bard's greatest strengths were their buffs but in solo play the class loses meaning. Slowly all but the most powerful and self sufficient builds become less and less viable until you end up with a very shallow, pointless game.

frankly, i hate all of the proposals to make characters crappier (AKA nerfing)

Generally I would agree if it were not for the few synergies and splashes that are horribly broken and stupidly over powered right now.

[zwiebelring]

Since everybody can play epic elite, I don't want to spend money on a regular basis without having the same options as does have a F2P player, who happens to be better at microing his toon between epic elite mobs.

That was fair.

Turbine has to decide - and be specific about it - to either want an actual ingame elite or providing everything to the whole community.

[jskinner937]

I'm just going to rant here. Sorry that this isn't more composed.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of balance. My view of how character design should work is informed by my 20+ years of playing pnp dnd. If balance means making it so that barbarians don't really need healers, I'm against it. If balance means making pure class characters as powerful as finely tuned multiclass characters, I'm against it. In my view, characters that aren't based on archetypes that are supposed to have legendary skills at x should not be nearly as good at x as those characters. Moreover, I think the game should have moments when the disparity between these characters is evident and makes a real difference concerning what happens and what is even possible for a character/group without a specialist in x. I don't think there is a problem with pure class characters being viable in ee content. I think they are viable. I think the so-called viability problem is more about people having self-esteem issues when they see their characters being out preformed by multiclassers. I'll grant that multiclass characters are more powerful than pure class. It can still be true that when a pure class character enters a quest with multiclass characters they can contribute. I think it's fine for multiclass characters to have more overall survivability and power in general. Multiclassing to reduce weaknesses and enhance power has always been a part of dnd. The only complaint I have about multiclassing is that there is nowhere in the game where a pure classer's skill in x really outshines a multiclasser's and has a real impact on outcomes and possibilities. For example, there really is no place in the game where rogue mechanic show's he/she can do something no one else can. In my view, since this is a dnd based game, someone should be able to spend a lot of time perfecting a trap focused rogue and have that effort rewarded. That particular rogue should be able to do things with traps no one else can. If there are issues of 'balance' in the game that need to be addressed, I'd say it has nothing to do with dps and everything to do with how easy it to self heal, how easy it is to bypass traps, and how amazingly effective a small number of spells are against most of the environment (it's great that necro's are weak against undead, that fire sorcerers are weak against fire-based creatures, and I think we need this spread out more generally).

So you compare you pNp experience here, however in pNp multicass with the same experience points as a pure class are far behind the curve of pure class since they had to allocate their experience points to each class. DDO is an interpretation of pNp and IMO is currently a perverse interpretation at best. If you have a limited amount of heroic experience available to you, a pure class should have the most powerful abilities available to them and if you multicass, you should sacrifice those for something else in return. The point many are trying to make is so many of the most powerful abilities are low hanging fruit in many prestige class trees that the choice to play pure class currently means you are sacrificing more power for the flavor of pure class. Casters are about the exception here. If more powerful abilities were tied to class levels or capstones were vastly increased for those lackluster pure classes, that makes more sense and would be much further in line with pNp then the current system.

Honestly the other alternative using your own example is to make multiclassing more along the lines as it was with pNp. Which means for example a multiclassing could only achieve a 8/8 split or 5/5/5 split before capping out on heroic XP. I am not in favor of this either, so increasing capstones makes the most sense.

[SirValentine]

Also soloing is bad for the game, hurts the lfm and general community/life of ddo.

Wrong. There always has been people who will solo, either exclusively, or at times, due to factors completely outside the game. Either Turbine can have options for those people, or they can lose them as potential customers. When those solo-only players are playing DDO solo, it does not in any way hurt the game or community. The alternative is for them to play some other game, were DDO to not support their play-style. Do you think that would somehow be better for the game & community?

[SirValentine]

If balance means making pure class characters as powerful as finely tuned multiclass characters, I'm against it.

What kind of pure class character?

If balance means a thrown-together character (pure or multi) is as powerful as a finely-tuned character, I'm against it, too.

If balance means a finely-tuned pure class character is as powerful as a finely-tuned multi-class character, of course I'm for it! Why would you be against that?

[Satyriasys]

Wrong. There always has been people who will solo, either exclusively, or at times, due to factors completely outside the game. Either Turbine can have options for those people, or they can lose them as potential customers. When those solo-only players are playing DDO solo, it does not in any way hurt the game or community. The alternative is for them to play some other game, were DDO to not support their play-style. Do you think that would somehow be better for the game & community?

True, there needs to be options for solo players but it should not replace grouping. Currently it's far too easy to solo some content then it should be. Too many soloers hurt the game is what I should have said.

[BigErkyKid]

You (usually) pay for versatility in power, and I think that's fair enough. In theory, for example, taking two levels of Rogue or Monk in your otherwise-pure-class costs you your capstone, and that should be a meaningful cost.


You're welcome to your personal taste, just as I have mine. But if you get your way (increased group reliance/forced grouping to finish quests), that makes my style of play less fun. If soloing is a reasonable way to play, people who enjoy grouping still can and will group. I don't think people are that confused about how to behave in groups.

I don't think you do as it stands. The very meager losses for some classes at higher levels are more than compensated by very powerful low hanging fruit.


I do think that people are increasingly unable to cooperate. I am rolling rogue now, first time (never felt the need to disable traps before) just for fun. When there is a quest that has deadly traps (a large number of quests have traps that can be avoided) I have been casted a few times heroism by other players(even though I carry hundreds of heroism pots on me, but how would they know). When there are no such traps, the only thing I see is a bunch of people running like crazy ants all over the quest. In wizzard king, one of the most common demands is be able to solo a tower.

Playing in groups seems to be done simply for faster completition (in quests where there is actually such gain), whereas in quests with few fights or very linear I can only see advantages to doing it alone. I dislike that. This is brought by the fact that people don't have a more meaningful way to cooperate.

What does it mean to cooperate in a 4 people group doing wizking? To solo a tower. So basically it is like playing in the same way, 4 times faster. What else could they do to cooperate? What group strategy do they need? What interesting synergies happen within the group?

Outside of raids, 4 lever quests and a bunch of other quests I don't see much meaningful encouragement for grouping in this game. For me, one of the MAIN appeals of the DnD world is the group dynamics and I think this is the case for a large number of people too

Could you solo quests if they nerfed the absolute self sufficiency of some builds? Yes, you could get hirelings or play it smart. Build a character capable of overcoming many difficulties with strnghts in a limited number of the game abilities. That can be fun too! The other day i jumped in a quest with a strict healbot player and my now underpowered character. It was difficult but rewarding to be able to pull the fights and the rest with strategy and cunning and not simply steamroll over everything.

Encouraging more team play by providing obvious ways to cooperate does not necessarily mean making soloing impossible or a very ugly option.


PS - So let me bring your attention again to the cooperation test. When was the last time or how frequently happens that:

1. Someone healed you.
2. You waited for someone to deal with a trap or did it yourself (for the group while they waited).
3. Casted or received NON group buffs (those that need specific targetting and are not just an externality).
4. Participated in an explicit group strategy (positioning, pulling, shield walls, whatever) with other party members.
(bring more if you come up with them)

[sebastianosmith]

PS - So let me bring your attention again to the cooperation test. When was the last time or how frequently happens that:

1. Someone healed you.
2. You waited for someone to deal with a trap or did it yourself (for the group while they waited).
3. Casted or received NON group buffs (those that need specific targetting and are not just an externality).
4. Participated in an explicit group strategy (positioning, pulling, shield walls, whatever) with other party members.
(bring more if you come up with them)

I and my static group do all of these every time we step into a quest. We play as a team, each fulfilling a critical role which makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts. That is the way we choose to play. The game neither encourages nor dissuades us from doing so. We simply decided to do it on our own.

The reason so many players choose to solo or zerg like mad is not a function of game mechanics. The game allows for such behavior just as it allows for what I and my group prefer. It doesn't favor any particular style over another. The players do that based on desire and expectation. Attempting to enforce a behavior through enticement, game mechanics or some other means will produce unpredictable results because many such measures fail to take player goals into account.

[Pandir]

I and my static group do all of these every time we step into a quest. We play as a team, each fulfilling a critical role which makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts. That is the way we choose to play. The game neither encourages nor dissuades us from doing so. We simply decided to do it on our own.

The reason so many players choose to solo or zerg like mad is not a function of game mechanics. The game allows for such behavior just as it allows for what I and my group prefer. It doesn't favor any particular style over another. The players do that based on desire and expectation. Attempting to enforce a behavior through enticement, game mechanics or some other means will produce unpredictable results because many such measures fail to take player goals into account.

Thanks for that, how did we get from character balance to soloing needs to be curbed anyways.

[Zoda]

I haven't read all the posts, only a few, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet or not, but I think it is important to mention. So, I think Divine Might needs some adjustments. As it is now, it almost completely invalidates non strenght builds for melee, as the bonus it provides is way too powerful for the tiny investment it requires, not to mention that splashing paladin/fvs/cleric has other benefits (uber saves/decent +2 to all saves for lvl 1/easy scroll mastery access respectively). If we just take an average example of a character starting 14 CHA, using a + 10 item, +2 insightful, +1 exceptional, +3 tome, +2 ship buff, +2 yugo pot, it is already at 34 CHA, getting 12 STR for a very minimal investment (also getting good UMD, so it even has multiple benefits), while a power gamer can hit 40 CHA without much of a sacrifice. Just for comparison, a pure barbarian, with enhancements gets +11 STR for his lvl 20 rage.

I see 2 possible solutions for this:
a) returning divine might might to be a damage bonus as it used to be (hell, I went crazy looking for +4 cha tome on my pally life back in the day to hit the 20 CHA requirement for DM 4 back in the day for that additional +2 damage)
b) moving it higher up the enhancement tree, it easily has the power level of most tier 5 abilities, but I guess it'd already be fine as tier 3 or 4 (or lvl 12 core), so it won't be so easy to splash for it - as once again, multiclass is the OP, not pure.
The 2nd solution I presented would also make playing a paladin (instead of 2-6 levls splash) more desireable.