An Open Letter to Players and Devs

[Kittyvicious]

This is why, in any game, balance is a challenge. Because for any group of X players you have a group of Y who feel the opposite.

Since I've been informed I don't have an accurate perception of the game due to not playing it non stop since beta, would you say that the current state of leveling and world content to be more in line with the current player base and/or the vision of the developers? (aside from changes coming in U13 and naturally the future because of iterative design)

While that seems like a loaded statement, I rather enjoy the current pacing and 'feel' of content as well as the recent class changes and MMOs typically don't take radical swings back and forth so I imagine that this is mostly intentional. I'm also pleased to hear you are revisiting some older content you feel needs updating and I look forward to playing that on an alt. Really to me the world is what stands out in this game more than anything and I think it has captured the appropriate vision since I first logged in many years ago and continues to do so today.

I hope I'm not in a minority in saying such, but one can never really know unless they have access to the magical data that MMO's generate behind the scenes.

[DanteIL]

Opinion. For some, the was always too difficult. For others, too easy. Adjustments either way would impact one group or the other and at the end of the day, which way it was adjusted and which way you preferred would mean your last 7 words could be said by either group.

This is why, in any game, balance is a challenge. Because for any group of X players you have a group of Y who feel the opposite.

So what might be useful, then, would be for the playerbase to be given some insight into the objective, non-opinion measures that the *Developers* use to assess balance. You have said before that player feedback is one of many sources of input that you use to evaluate gameplay, so if many (vocal?) people feel that the game is off-balance, then what other independent metrics are used to put that direct player feedback into context? ALL the players can point to is their own experiences of playing the game, so it is no wonder that this is what they base their feedback on. What other measures are available 'behind the scenes'?

[SNy-lotrolinux-EU]

Opinion.

Excuse me? After all those threads and your earlier remark that sounded a lot like "we heard you the first couple hundred times", THIS is your answer?
That it is OPINION that being able to solo on-level content originally designed for 12 people screams "too easy"?

For some, the was always too difficult. For others, too easy. Adjustments either way would impact one group or the other and at the end of the day, which way it was adjusted and which way you preferred would mean your last 7 words could be said by either group.

This is why, in any game, balance is a challenge. Because for any group of X players you have a group of Y who feel the opposite.

Quite honestly, there have been sooo many threads that tell you guys that everything is far too easy now, whereas there has been the odd one out, mostly regarding Death From Below (and that was a singular occurence of truly challening content, 3 odd years ago, no less).
So arguing that changing the difficulty back up would upset people to the extent you make out to be is very hard to believe.

SNy

[Crell_1]

This is why, in any game, balance is a challenge. Because for any group of X players you have a group of Y who feel the opposite.

The trick is finding a happy medium. I wish the development team the best of luck in finding it. It feels like the part of the community I interact with (glff/twitter/forums) feels one way. Its entirely possible that a much larger portion of the playerbase feels the opposite. I'm just hoping the ever moving balance pendulum swings a little more in my preferred direction.

[Sapience]

Since I've been informed I don't have an accurate perception of the game due to not playing it non stop since beta, would you say that the current state of leveling and world content to be more in line with the current player base and/or the vision of the developers? (aside from changes coming in U13 and naturally the future because of iterative design)

While that seems like a loaded statement, I rather enjoy the current pacing and 'feel' of content as well as the recent class changes and MMOs typically don't take radical swings back and forth so I imagine that this is mostly intentional. I'm also pleased to hear you are revisiting some older content you feel needs updating and I look forward to playing that on an alt. Really to me the world is what stands out in this game more than anything and I think it has captured the appropriate vision since I first logged in many years ago and continues to do so today.

I hope I'm not in a minority in saying such, but one can never really know unless they have access to the magical data that MMO's generate behind the scenes.

For starters I reject the initial statement. How long one has played or not played is irrelevant. It's a bit like saying someone's opinion is more valid because they've held it longer (often the opposite is true). I think if someone has to use that type of a statement to make their point (not you, those who said it to you) they already know they are on shaky ground with their argument.

I think the easiest answer is to say go back and look as 12.2 and 12.3 release notes. In both we stated we were making things a bit tougher in various ways. We'll likely continue that in Update 13. Because, as we said when we first started with class changes in the HD beta, we expect balancing after the class changes to be an on going thing for some time. We may go too far one way or the other in trying to reach the middle, but we are trying , and will continue to try with each update.

That said, we don't make decisions in a vacuum. We're very data driven.

[cdq1958]

I just find it hard to believe and this is why: my RK is my 5th alt. I don't even know what the skills are to be honest. I trait lightning and hit the same 3 skills all the time. Same with mounted combat.

I started last week at 85 and just hit 95 today. Not a single death. LIs: I used lvl 85 ones. Settings/gems/runes: tier 3 and 4.

After getting ready to replace my LIs at 95 I noticed one thing: I forgot to spend 1 single point in my LIs. Meaning, I leveled from 85 to 95 with 85 LIs with no points on them. Not a single death. Heck, I don't remember ever dropping close to death during the leveling process.

Again, this is a toon that I don't know how to play. I don't know what 3/4 of the skills are. It was a crafting toon that I took to 95 because, well, there's nothing else that interests me with my other toons.

How can someone say that there's challenge in the landscape at the moment?

I'd say there is challenge in that defeat is not the only way to fail a task. High risk/adrenaline rush is also not the be-all and end-all of game play. The goal for the landscape is that everyone, no matter how they're geared or skilled, can complete tasks in a reasonable amount of time. For a casual, solo-friendly game, that's a must. If you want risk .... I'd say go make your own. That said, balance in a game is like naval ranging. You'll miss more often than you hit and when you're ranging properly, that's exactly what you want.

I would say that things could seem to be more unbalanced, in terms of riskiness, is in camps/keeps and instances/raids. The general landscape's just fine as it is.

[rosey21]

I'd say there is challenge in that defeat is not the only way to fail a task. High risk/adrenaline rush is also not the be-all and end-all of game play. The goal for the landscape is that everyone, no matter how they're geared or skilled, can complete tasks in a reasonable amount of time. For a casual, solo-friendly game, that's a must. If you want risk .... I'd say go make your own. That said, balance in a game is like naval ranging. You'll miss more often than you hit and when you're ranging properly, that's exactly what you want.

I would say that things could seem to be more unbalanced, in terms of riskiness, is in camps/keeps and instances/raids. The general landscape's just fine as it is.

Landscape content is not meant to be challenging. It is for everyone to enjoy & play. Turbine has stated that.

[Beaniemooch]

Since I've been informed I don't have an accurate perception of the game due to not playing it non stop since beta, would you say that the current state of leveling and world content to be more in line with the current player base and/or the vision of the developers? (aside from changes coming in U13 and naturally the future because of iterative design)

I'm a bit confused where you think I said you don't have an accurate perception of the game. What I said that is that you are not experiencing the content on the difficulty level that it was when it was released. That has nothing to do with your enjoyment. You may think it's a good thing that it's easier - I do not - and both are opinions. I never claimed it was anything else. In fact I said things were not necessarily better that they were easier or necessarily negative when it was harder. I never said an absolute in either case because I assume it's up to the person whether or not they think it's better or negative. All I really said is the Mirkwood you are experiencing now is not the same as the Mirkwood experience when it was released. Your mileage may vary when it comes to thinking that's an improvement.

EDIT: My apologies if you think this was directed at you in a personal "you're clueless" type of way, because it wasn't. I'm sitting here rereading what I originally said and gobsmacked that it's making such a stir. Things are different now because of changes inherent in the game and I didn't think that was such a startling concept. That was really my main point.

[SNy-lotrolinux-EU]

Landscape content is not meant to be challenging. It is for everyone to enjoy & play. Turbine has stated that.

Please elaborate on how this wasn't true before the huge change that was HD hit?
Bonus points for quoting from an assortment of the presumably large numbers of comments saying stuff (remember, the argument you are making involves the landscape) was too hard before?

SNy

[Crell_1]

That said, we don't make decisions in a vacuum. We're very data driven.

I know Turbine isn't very open to sharing their internal-data-metrics, but it would rock you tell us what some of the factors that lead to both the difficulty increases mentioned in the 12.2 and 12.3 release notes were. Especially if it wasn't driven by forum comments primarily.

Some examples of factors might include: 'How frequently does a player die when facing a mob' (under what circumstances [signature/elite/multiple mobs at once/on level...]

How many attempts does it take to complete an instance (deaths per party/player).

Are the players intentionally pulling multiple groups of mobs in an instance? (such as activating the all the groups on both sides of the inital area in the foundry before killing a single one.)

[Pluck]

The entire problem here is summed up in your last 7 words.



Opinion. For some, the was always too difficult. For others, too easy. Adjustments either way would impact one group or the other and at the end of the day, which way it was adjusted and which way you preferred would mean your last 7 words could be said by either group.

This is why, in any game, balance is a challenge. Because for any group of X players you have a group of Y who feel the opposite.

Boly oh boy I have to disagree with you and I think this is a fundamental issue with the game.

Game difficulty is NOT just about how hard a certain mob or area is at level. Game difficulty impacts the social aspects of the game in enormous ways, and its why a game like EQ the first year was such a vastly different (and better in my opinion) type of experience than LOTRO in 2014. For many of us, the experiences we had back in 1999, dealing with the incredible difficulty of EQ when it first released was more fun than anything LOTRO has to offer in its current incarnation. Heck, my friends and I still talk about EQ 15 years later. We dont talk about LOTRO, other than maybe Moria when it first came out, all dark and dangerous. Or even further back, the Old Forest, all forbidding and mazey. Good times.

And dont tell me that I can group up if I want. I know that. But theres no REASON other than to have someone to chat with, and I can do that without grouping. The whole idea of grouping was because it was necessary, because you needed those allies at your back as you took on the deadly challenges of the world. Instead, its more like "hey gonna go clean out Minas Eriol, doing the spiders and the goblins, anyone wanna join?" "how many do you need"? "Doesnt matter, I can solo it at level, just want some company." "oh ok, nah good luck."

Whee, talk about heroic!

Sure, theres a steady stream of players who want a quick solo experience and who will drop some bucks in the store. But in my opinion they are being cheated out of memorable experiences and THAT is the real crime here. Because they dont realize what they are missing! You can talk about the difficult task of accommodating differing play styles, but as a veteran of nearly every MMO since UO, I can tell you the best times were when there was a significant challenge, real immersion, real danger. I feel none of that any more.

[cdq1958]

Boly oh boy I have to disagree with you and I think this is a fundamental issue with the game.

Game difficulty is NOT just about how hard a certain mob or area is at level. Game difficulty impacts the social aspects of the game in enormous ways, and its why a game like EQ the first year was such a vastly different (and better in my opinion) type of experience than LOTRO in 2014. For many of us, the experiences we had back in 1999, dealing with the incredible difficulty of EQ when it first released was more fun than anything LOTRO has to offer in its current incarnation. Heck, my friends and I still talk about EQ 15 years later. We dont talk about LOTRO, other than maybe Moria when it first came out, all dark and dangerous. Or even further back, the Old Forest, all forbidding and mazey. Good times.

And dont tell me that I can group up if I want. I know that. But theres no REASON other than to have someone to chat with, and I can do that without grouping. The whole idea of grouping was because it was necessary, because you needed those allies at your back as you took on the deadly challenges of the world. Instead, its more like "hey gonna go clean out Minas Eriol, doing the spiders and the goblins, anyone wanna join?" "how many do you need"? "Doesnt matter, I can solo it at level, just want some company." "oh ok, nah good luck."

Whee, talk about heroic!

Sure, theres a steady stream of players who want a quick solo experience and who will drop some bucks in the store. But in my opinion they are being cheated out of memorable experiences and THAT is the real crime here. Because they dont realize what they are missing! You can talk about the difficult task of accommodating differing play styles, but as a veteran of nearly every MMO since UO, I can tell you the best times were when there was a significant challenge, real immersion, real danger. I feel none of that any more.

I disagree. It was games like EQ that put me off. I work hard all day. I don't want to work hard in a game; nor do I want to schedule my social life around one. So, I avoided 'old school' MMOs like the plague. SWG, though, because I could play 'solo & casual' as a trader, appealed to me. Running a virtual business was just as hard, if not harder, than running instances/raids. Much as the CU/NGE destroyed the ability to be a non-combat character, I adapted. I could still be 'solo & casual' running my business. Sure, I now had to engage in combat to gain levels to gather materials on Dathomir, but that adaptation wasn't a big deal.

For the same reasons, I like LoTRO. It works for me because it is not 'old-school' MMO where teamed combat is the 'only' way to play. I do not feel 'cheated' by avoiding unnecessary risk and tedium dressed up as 'ersatz' challenge. I get far more immersion here than I do in, say, SWTOR, so I have spent far more dollars here than I'll ever spend there. I suspect that I am not alone and may be far more common in sentiment than some want to accept.

[Thornglen]

Sure, theres a steady stream of players who want a quick solo experience and who will drop some bucks in the store. But in my opinion they are being cheated out of memorable experiences and THAT is the real crime here. Because they dont realize what they are missing! You can talk about the difficult task of accommodating differing play styles, but as a veteran of nearly every MMO since UO, I can tell you the best times were when there was a significant challenge, real immersion, real danger. I feel none of that any more.

But what if they *do* know what they are missing and it is because of the experience they *can* have that there is a steady stream of players?

My experiences in the more difficult landscape areas were that if you were lucky enough to be at or near the front of the pack as content was released you had no trouble and could get groups, do the quests, etc. If, however, you came in years later or were just a slow leveler it was much more likely people were skipping the difficult areas and just moving to the next zone. If you had a kinship and people were willing to help out, that was fine, but otherwise you either skipped as well, or went back when you were overlevel.

How many players were there in the original EQ days? Could that number of players spread out over all the MMOs and other games available today be enough to sustain a game? Times change. Yes, I do think the game balance is out of whack since the HD updates, but I also think it is still being worked on. Since you have been around so long you already know Turbine doesn't often manage to turn this Middle-earth ship on a dime.

[Kittyvicious]

For starters I reject the initial statement. How long one has played or not played is irrelevant. It's a bit like saying someone's opinion is more valid because they've held it longer (often the opposite is true). I think if someone has to use that type of a statement to make their point (not you, those who said it to you) they already know they are on shaky ground with their argument.

I think the easiest answer is to say go back and look as 12.2 and 12.3 release notes. In both we stated we were making things a bit tougher in various ways. We'll likely continue that in Update 13. Because, as we said when we first started with class changes in the HD beta, we expect balancing after the class changes to be an on going thing for some time. We may go too far one way or the other in trying to reach the middle, but we are trying , and will continue to try with each update.

Fair points. I understand that balance and difficulty may be something that others place high emphasis on, but I'm more focused on the overall experience which isn't dependent on single mobs posing great challenges to my class while I'm trying to be enveloped by a world and great story. If I wanted challenge, it seems I could seek it instead of having it forced on me...examples like pulling multiple mobs, playing off traited (leveling blue or yellow instead red), etc.

That said, we don't make decisions in a vacuum. We're very data driven.

I imagined as much as I have heard a lot of detail from other MMOs as to how they use data analysis to determine what is 'really' going on inside the game. I'm sure you still see players dying frequently with x class in y area and so forth. It's probably the type of data that is actually more relevant to determining balance than anything we could say. I appreciate your candid responses though as I realize it is a hot button issue even if it's only a vocal minority on forums.

Whatever the case, I just wanted to be a voice saying that there are still people both newish to the game and otherwise who find the current game extremely engaging, loads of fun, and appreciate the time it takes to create the world. Hopefully U13 goes a long way to bringing players together over the enjoyment of the game, which is something often forgotten when lobbying for specific fixes.

I just hope this thread serves as a reminder that there is a bigger picture to try and see, a forest through the trees in a digitally literal sense when it comes to LotRO, and trust in you guys to hammer out the background noise to refine that experience.

[SNy-lotrolinux-EU]

I suspect that I am not alone and may be far more common in sentiment than some want to accept.

A voice from the off just said: "Opinion."

SNy

[rosey21]

I disagree. It was games like EQ that put me off. I work hard all day. I don't want to work hard in a game; nor do I want to schedule my social life around one. So, I avoided 'old school' MMOs like the plague. SWG, though, because I could play 'solo & casual' as a trader, appealed to me. Running a virtual business was just as hard, if not harder, than running instances/raids. Much as the CU/NGE destroyed the ability to be a non-combat character, I adapted. I could still be 'solo & casual' running my business. Sure, I now had to engage in combat to gain levels to gather materials on Dathomir, but that adaptation wasn't a big deal.

For the same reasons, I like LoTRO. It works for me because it is not 'old-school' MMO where teamed combat is the 'only' way to play. I do not feel 'cheated' by avoiding unnecessary risk and tedium dressed up as 'ersatz' challenge. I get far more immersion here than I do in, say, SWTOR, so I have spent far more dollars here than I'll ever spend there. I suspect that I am not alone and may be far more common in sentiment than some want to accept.

I feel the same way.

[Pluck]

But what if they *do* know what they are missing and it is because of the experience they *can* have that there is a steady stream of players?

My experiences in the more difficult landscape areas were that if you were lucky enough to be at or near the front of the pack as content was released you had no trouble and could get groups, do the quests, etc. If, however, you came in years later or were just a slow leveler it was much more likely people were skipping the difficult areas and just moving to the next zone. If you had a kinship and people were willing to help out, that was fine, but otherwise you either skipped as well, or went back when you were overlevel.

How many players were there in the original EQ days? Could that number of players spread out over all the MMOs and other games available today be enough to sustain a game? Times change. Yes, I do think the game balance is out of whack since the HD updates, but I also think it is still being worked on. Since you have been around so long you already know Turbine doesn't often manage to turn this Middle-earth ship on a dime.

Well of course there are people that dont want challenge in the landscape. And some of them have experienced real difficulty in MMOs and prefer it smooth and effortless. And some want it really hard. And some want it somewhere in the middle. Me, I want a balance, I want it easy in some spots, medium in others, and I want a real challenge in others. Frankly, my ideal MMO would be one with differing challenge levels within the landscape. Easier on the main traveled routes (makes sense), and progressively harder as you get off the beaten path. Lotro did this better in the beginning (the Old Forest was a blast, an optional location that was really challenging at level) but then everything got nerfed as time went on. It IS possible to give attention to differing playstyles. Sapience says its hard... well guess what it seems to me instead of doing the hard work they took the easy way and dropped mob damage across the board and player damage against the same mobs across the board. Thats a pretty easy thing to do. It wasnt balancing, it was a global change.

Your point about EQ is a fair one. I think their max subs back in the day were, what 400k or something similar, and they leveled off to 250k for many years. Still gong strong too, I hear. But then again the costs to get a modern MMO off the ground are exponentially higher compared to the late 90s. And without a doubt, it would be difficult attracting millions of players today with the difficulty of the original EQ. But then again some indie publishers are reviving that sort of thing (Camelot Unchained is one I think). Remains to be see what EQNext does with challenge, tho they seem to be doing everything else right.

But one point I want to make again: Even with players who are absolutely POSITIVE they want less challenge and the ability to solo whenever they want... I submit you are being cheated out of great memories and experiences. And you will never really know it.

[Gedachtnis]

For starters I reject the initial statement. How long one has played or not played is irrelevant. It's a bit like saying someone's opinion is more valid because they've held it longer (often the opposite is true). I think if someone has to use that type of a statement to make their point (not you, those who said it to you) they already know they are on shaky ground with their argument.

I think the easiest answer is to say go back and look as 12.2 and 12.3 release notes. In both we stated we were making things a bit tougher in various ways. We'll likely continue that in Update 13. Because, as we said when we first started with class changes in the HD beta, we expect balancing after the class changes to be an on going thing for some time. We may go too far one way or the other in trying to reach the middle, but we are trying , and will continue to try with each update.

That said, we don't make decisions in a vacuum. We're very data driven.

Would the general impression of the Dev's be that we are too far one way or pretty close to the middle? In other words, are we looking at several incremental changes to get us back closer to the middle or occasional incremental changes to keep us close to where we are with maybe a small swing one way or the other?

[Sapience]

Would the general impression of the Dev's be that we are too far one way or pretty close to the middle? In other words, are we looking at several incremental changes to get us back closer to the middle or occasional incremental changes to keep us close to where we are with maybe a small swing one way or the other?

We're too far to the easy side, as I think we have mentioned in other places, but probably not as far as some think. Meaning if you expect the difficulty to suddenly ramp up to 1999 EQ levels as mentioned above, then you're going to be disappointed. Expect adjustments to radical swings one way or the other. It's easier to move the dial a bit and evaluate than it is to make wide swings back and forth and try to evaluate that.

[Dworin]

..... Whatever the case, I just wanted to be a voice saying that there are still people both newish to the game and otherwise who find the current game extremely engaging, loads of fun, ....

I'm sure there are. Just as there are people who find the game in it's present state to be a snorefest, populated by Saruman orcs more fit to pick flowers than to be any kind of threat to the people of Rohan. I know first-hand that there are people who have dropped VIP and do not buy TP, anymore. I am one of them. I have close friends and close family members who have done the same. We can still log in and do the things we now find fun without paying a dime: dancing, attending concerts, playing music, etc. But actually playing the game is not something I bother with; if I want to be bored I can go watch the grass grow.

Server population is not a great indicator of the health of a game, imo, because having a few players who spend lavishly is better than having a lot of players who spend little or nothing.

But mainly, neither viewpoint is wrong or right, except to the individual who has that viewpoint. You are not wrong to enjoy the game as it is, nor am I wrong in saying I get totally bored trying to play. It is what it is. But for the sake of those who do enjoy the game as it is, I hope there are enough new players to cover the lost revenue from those of us who used to be financially supportive but refuse to spend any more.

[Gedachtnis]

We're too far to the easy side, as I think we have mentioned in other places, but probably not as far as some think. Meaning if you expect the difficulty to suddenly ramp up to 1999 EQ levels as mentioned above, then you're going to be disappointed. Expect adjustments to radical swings one way or the other. It's easier to move the dial a bit and evaluate than it is to make wide swings back and forth and try to evaluate that.

I appreciate the direct answer Sapience.

I must have missed any similar answer that has been posted. Radical swings in play would be terrible no doubt. I'm very glad I'm on the same page with the current situation being a bit to far in the easy direction. And even then, personally, 1999 EQ would be to far in the other direction, at least as I've heard it described.

[BillinJax]

I usually don't post my opinion on how things are in this game, but I do tend to read a lot on the forums. After reading through most of this thread the same theme seems to run through it that many threads also cover. This idea that the instances can be run solo, whether 3man, 6man or 12man, because of the changes I find doubtful. Recently, to complete a story line series of quests I figured , based on those threads, that I'd give it a try. I took my level 75 hunter and a friend with a level 95 runekeeper ran a six man instance in Mirkwood at 65th level, just to be on the safe side. We got our butts handed to us and couldn't finish it. Now, I know, the response will be; we aren't geared right or don't know how to play our character classes. Both points probably valid, but I think the bigger picture is most people aren't geared right or don't know how to maximize their skills.

Those of you who min/max, kit out with all the greatest and latest stuff, who hotkey your skills and type your actions to the well orchestrated tempo that maximizes everything probably do find things incredibly easy. That's the type of personality you have and you're good at it. I just don't think most people play this game that way. You are alpha gamers and with any challenge once you beat it down to a simple formula of actions required to win you want another challenge. It's hard for any game company to keep up with that. I am just as aware of how easy the environment content is, too. I definitely would like to see tougher encounters in the wild.

On a side note, one thing I did notice, was how much bonus you get with physical mastery with on level opponents. Which gets increasing better as you out level them. Perhaps a tweak in that stat, lowering it significantly for players would help in the difficulty factor.

As for grouping, I came here 3 or 4 years ago with no experience in MMO's. Things I heard about WoW actually turned me off of playing games like that. I'm not that social, especially with people I don't know. The constant pop up requests to join fellowships I rejected because I considered it rude to send invites without contacting me first. So, not many opportunities. Joining a kin help, but the problem with that, along with few strike up fellowships in game, was that it was difficult to maintain. People leveled much faster than I wanted to. Everyone was in a rush to get maxed and I was taking my time. So, they would quickly out level me and no longer were suitable for fellowships. So, the increased ability to solo has been enjoyable to me.

[Pluck]

We're too far to the easy side, as I think we have mentioned in other places, but probably not as far as some think. Meaning if you expect the difficulty to suddenly ramp up to 1999 EQ levels as mentioned above, then you're going to be disappointed. Expect adjustments to radical swings one way or the other. It's easier to move the dial a bit and evaluate than it is to make wide swings back and forth and try to evaluate that.

Oh god I dont want EQ99 difficulty levels lol, especially on release. That was insane, if loads of fun. The modern MMO player would never tolerate that. I just want some challenge and thus immersion. If I can watch tv on one monitor while rolling through mobs on the other, something is off; Im not even really playing the game. But honestly, couldnt you guys just vary the mob difficulty in a given zone according to terrain and mob type more often? Make the Burly Orcs in the Forest of Woe and the Valley of Sorrow a lot tougher than the Wimpy Orcs who hang out by the roadside? Youve done that before. The main questlines should be doable by that casual soloer, but optional quests with better rewards could be had from those more challenging quests. The undead of Garth Arwen (sp?) are like that compared to the undead hanging out in the cranberry pools outside*.

*Cranberry pools. I always tell my wife that those are blood pools where the bog lurkers are. She insists they are cranberry pools because she doesnt like scary stuff.

[Cheery]

The trick is finding a happy medium. I wish the development team the best of luck in finding it. It feels like the part of the community I interact with (glff/twitter/forums) feels one way. Its entirely possible that a much larger portion of the playerbase feels the opposite. I'm just hoping the ever moving balance pendulum swings a little more in my preferred direction.

Best, and most civilized, phrasing I have read in months. I applaud your attitude and strongly concur with your wishes.
If pleasing everyone is impossible, perhaps the happiest solution is to take turns.

[Pluck]

Best, and most civilized, phrasing I have read in months. I applaud your attitude and strongly concur with your wishes.
If pleasing everyone is impossible, perhaps the happiest solution is to take turns.

OR, embed within the landscape all sorts of types of challenges, from the "I just got off work and want a few easy but satisfying adventures" all the way to "Ok im in the mood for some pain" sorts of encounters.