Player Character Balance

[BigErkyKid]

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.

I disagree. To talk specifics, let's go back to my wizking example. Exactly how is the quest completed in a better way by the attitude"We play as a team, each fulfilling a critical role which makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts". You play in a static group and cooperate regardless of whether there are meager returns to it or not.

A lot of people, notably rookies, play in pugs where the only reason that a priori they have to cooperate and formulate strategies is the in game reward. I argue that currently there is little to non.

It is game design 101 that desired behaviors should be incentivized. Then people decide if they like the game for what it rewards or not. Giving self sufficiency and little cross - player cooperation benefits directly points in the direction of no group play. With clickies, self buffs, self healing, evasion / trapping people barely need anything from anyone while in a group. I seldom ever see any of the 4 points I mentioned happen in game.

Exactly what cross player cooperation is the game encouraging right now? The whole state of it is summarized by: "every man on his own pushing to get this done as fast as possible". As I said, in a lot of quests the difference I see is simply speed, not more interesting synergies.

Saying that people can do as they please while the game mechanics are moving in the direction of no cooperation (in the sense I described) is just cheap talk.

PS - I get it, a veteran does NOT want to have to rely on someone who may not know how to play that well for crucial aspects of the gameplay. However, the alternative is even less fun for me.

[Pala-forged]

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)

Months ago. Not including healing aura, which doesn't really count.
Oh, ****. I'd have to say.. my second life.. probably a year ago?
Ooh.. I tend to pass some out while we're running, depending on the quest. Jump for the ones where it's useful, a resist if someone needs it.. few weeks, but it does happen.
Few weeks. I was running servants of the overlord with a couple of first lifers and I've seen how that ends in the past. Hell, even when I buff I sometimes get down to ~50 hp. For the first two rooms I told them to stay back while I pulled a few mobs in each, just to lighten the incoming damage on them.. then I cleaved everything to get agro. Was a fun run actually, though they were upset 3 melees didn't try the ritual optional

Edit: Your profanity filters suck, you're blocking some really common words..

[SirValentine]

It is game design 101 that desired behaviors should be incentivized.

Sure...but what are your "desired behaviors"?

Giving self sufficiency and little cross - player cooperation benefits directly points in the direction of no group play.

You keep saying that. But you as yet have given nothing to show there's little cooperation benefits. That directly contradicts my own experiences.

Saying that people can do as they please while the game mechanics are moving in the direction of no cooperation (in the sense I described) is just cheap talk.

Ah, now I see: you're using your own special definition of cooperation, and just arbitrarily declaring the extensive cooperation that others of us do in groups all the time as "no cooperation".

[Vellrad]

Ah, now I see: you're using your own special definition of cooperation, and just arbitrarily declaring the extensive cooperation that others of us do in groups all the time as "no cooperation".

Oh, please, everyone knows that for forum antibyoh people the only known form of cooperation and team work is 'you stand back never swinging your weapon while I have fun fighting mobs and completing quest'.

[knockcocker]

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.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just saying no. Your entire argument is based upon several assertions which you've
provided no evidence for , namely:

Vets will get bored playing in God-mode - really? based on what? you need to at least define what you mean by "God-mode".

Not being able to find a group - you're assuming that nobody is grouping because we're all soloing and that if we *had* to group
we *would*. Again, no basis for this. Personally, I just wouldn't play. I know many others who just wouldn't play either.
Everyone has access to the LFM panel - try one yourself if there are no groups. Stop blaming other players for your game experience
with baseless arguments.

The rest of this paragraph is subjective. For instance, "entertaining" is a personal perspective.

Have you ever played an MMO on a private server by yourself? It's not very fun.

How is that relevant to anything said?

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.

This is DDO not D&D. You can play D&D on DDO if you want - you just need to find those likeminded
people who also want to. You just can't force people to align what with what you think the game
experience should be - that's not fair. Encouraging 'balance changes' (i.e. nerfs) based on your
perception of what you think the game experience should be is wrong - anything that reduces options
is wrong as you *already* have the power to make this game the grouping game that you want to
play. If nobody joins your groups perhaps it's you that's wrong?

[Pandir]

Oh, please, everyone knows that for forum antibyoh people the only known form of cooperation and team work is 'you stand back never swinging your weapon while I have fun fighting mobs and completing quest'.

Hey i'm all for bringing the holy mmo trinity to DDO for a while. Just so i can chuckle at all the LFM's with 3 - 4 dps, reading "Just need tank and healer then g2g"

[knockcocker]

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.

Exactly. Trying to force everyone to play in a certain way feels very "anti-D&D" to me - which is ironic
given it's a principle argument for some of the posters who seem to want to dictate what your game
experience should be like.

[Satyriasys]

knockcocker, It's obvious we have very different ideas of what is fun and what DDO should be. I am sure glad you are not in charge of this game and I would hate to group with you. This is ok as we both have different playstyles/opinions. No need to get snippy with me.

[knockcocker]

knockcocker, It's obvious we have very different ideas of what is fun and what DDO should be. I am sure glad you are not in charge of this game and I would hate to group with you. This is ok as we both have different playstyles/opinions. No need to get snippy with me.

I'm not getting snippy; just pointing out that you actually have no basis for any of the asssertions you're making about
soloers destroying the game. My chief point is that you can already play the game how you like but you don't seem
satisifed with this and want to make it the only way to play the game.

[DakDeFrosted]

So...we're turning DDO into NWO? Is that the idea?

Why bother with different classes at all? Just have everyone play one class, with one skill, and one stat.

Sounds like fun.

[sebastianosmith]

I disagree.

I suspected you would.

To talk specifics, let's go back to my wizking example. Exactly how is the quest completed in a better way by the attitude"We play as a team, each fulfilling a critical role which makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts". You play in a static group and cooperate regardless of whether there are meager returns to it or not.

I mentioned nothing of "better". Nor did I imply anything "meager". I stated that the game mechanics don't impose a play style but the players do based on desire and expectation.

It is game design 101 that desired behaviors should be incentivized. Then people decide if they like the game for what it rewards or not. Giving self sufficiency and little cross - player cooperation benefits directly points in the direction of no group play. With clickies, self buffs, self healing, evasion / trapping people barely need anything from anyone while in a group. I seldom ever see any of the 4 points I mentioned happen in game.

Rewards are subjective. Each person will assign worth according to individual desire. The game, once again, does not impose that desire. Players do. If you'd like to incentivise cooperation and sharing, I suggest you begin long before players join the game.

Exactly what cross player cooperation is the game encouraging right now?

This game encourages only one thing: The exchange of money from players to Turbine. The rest is baggage brought by the players.

Saying that people can do as they please while the game mechanics are moving in the direction of no cooperation (in the sense I described) is just cheap talk.

The mechanics encourage nothing. Player desire for ever increasing power does. When all a player is concerned with is leveling as fast as possible and having the best-in-slot gear, the result is what you are describing. The game itself is quite agnostic on this matter.

I make no judgment on how anyone wishes to play. There are a myriad of avenues to explore, each being as valid as any other. To suggest that the game is at fault for not encouraging a singular play style not only displays disregard for human nature, but places the blame upon the wrong party entirely.

[Satyriasys]

I'm not getting snippy; just pointing out that you actually have no basis for any of the asssertions you're making about
soloers destroying the game. My chief point is that you can already play the game how you like but you don't seem
satisifed with this and want to make it the only way to play the game.

Not sure why I need to provide evidence of my opinions. It's based on my experience and I am calling it how I see it. I already explained how many classes are being rendered obsolete. If you want to solo that's fine but the more solo friendly this game gets the more watered down generic hack and slash the farther it gets from D&D you seem fine with that but I think its a tragedy. I am glad that soloing is an option and I mainly solo myself but it should be harder than grouping and currently it is not. quest scaling needs to be tweaked and power builds need to be toned down. Soloing should be an accomplishment and all classes should have a place.

The Tear of Dhakaan for instance, it was made more solo friendly by making the shrines unlocked, and adding another shrine. Before if you didn't have a rogue you would need to conserve and be extra careful, now that element is lost. We couldn't have one quest with this extra challenge? This is the type of direction I am against.

[RapkintheRanger]

We all know of monkchers soloing FoT. .

any evidence for this?

no, i didn't think so... are you confused with TOR?

[SirValentine]

any evidence for this?

Searching is hard!

Here's 4 EE and 1 EH monk-archer solo FoTs for you:

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...88-EE-FOT-solo
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...23-EE-FOT-solo
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...-hard-fot-solo
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...pic-Elite-Solo
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...-solo-thelanis

[Nightmanis]

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.

I can't really disagree with this. A good idea would be to give bards something similar that doesn't stack.

[BigErkyKid]

I suspected you would.



I mentioned nothing of "better". Nor did I imply anything "meager". I stated that the game mechanics don't impose a play style but the players do based on desire and expectation.



Rewards are subjective. Each person will assign worth according to individual desire. The game, once again, does not impose that desire. Players do. If you'd like to incentivise cooperation and sharing, I suggest you begin long before players join the game.



This game encourages only one thing: The exchange of money from players to Turbine. The rest is baggage brought by the players.



The mechanics encourage nothing. Player desire for ever increasing power does. When all a player is concerned with is leveling as fast as possible and having the best-in-slot gear, the result is what you are describing. The game itself is quite agnostic on this matter.

I make no judgment on how anyone wishes to play. There are a myriad of avenues to explore, each being as valid as any other. To suggest that the game is at fault for not encouraging a singular play style not only displays disregard for human nature, but places the blame upon the wrong party entirely.

With all due respect, I don't think the sort of thinking is very much against the spirit of mechanism/game design. Nothing is casual in making a game. The mechanics encourage everything. Rewards to influence people. I don't have much to discuss if you deny that.

[Zoda]

I can't really disagree with this. A good idea would be to give bards something similar that doesn't stack.

Or rather just do something to inspire courage, because I don't see myself even waiting for the bard to sing it in it's current state.

[Fixil]

I had a good idea to balance the Pure Human or Non-human Fighter class into a good balance.
In the vein of the idea of the class is that a Fighter must be able to fight a reasonable amount time before dying, so... I was thinking to balance this you could use the "Unbreakable" accent to tier up an imperviousness for lengths of time.
I know it's stretching it considering the width of the tree but I think it would solve the imbalance. I wanted to contribute this is the sense that I think it's doable at a mechanic level, putting it in the players hands, BUT actually resulting in a fighter that should have appropriate staying-alive ability for it's Character Level.

Just a little further, the way you guys have been going to getting bugs and fixing them lately, and on top of that releasing stuff I thought as well would make it worthwhile to contribute.

[sebastianosmith]

With all due respect, I don't think the sort of thinking is very much against the spirit of mechanism/game design. Nothing is casual in making a game. The mechanics encourage everything. Rewards to influence people. I don't have much to discuss if you deny that.

Game mechanics circumscribe only what is possible. How one wishes to address those limits is entirely up to the individual. If the realization that a completely optional rule set has been implemented which abrogates a desired methodology has come upon you, simply ignore that option. However, do not request that your desires be paramount based entirely on personal preference.

As far as this game has strayed from its roots, I must still commend Turbine for retaining at least the open-ended spirit of its namesake. There are many paths and no real destinations.

[Aeryyn]

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.

Exactly. Trying to force everyone to play in a certain way feels very "anti-D&D" to me - which is ironic given it's a principle argument for some of the posters who seem to want to dictate what your game experience should be like.

This game allows for a LOT of different play styles, as does PnP D&D. A lot of posts in this thread are from players defending their play style. The thing is, nothing is wrong with ANY of the play styles discussed in this thread, the styles just reflect the different types of people who play. The Devs should also keep in mind that this thread reflects a small, but very vocal, minority of people who play this game.

I like the versatility of the game in that it accommodates for so many play styles, but unless you want this game to turn into a NWN or WoW clone, be careful what you wish for. If you want the game to continue to be Dungeons & Dragons Online, you should keep closer to the spirit of D&D, otherwise the game morphs into something that it was never originally intended to be, which is where it seems to be heading now (imnsho).