Let's address the uncomfortable truth about the gear gap

Let's address the uncomfortable truth about the gear gap, a contentious topic that needs careful consideration. Before delving into this discussion, I'd like to clarify my support for a longer time-to-kill (TTK) and the limitation of weapon damage to a maximum of +2, if not +1. While all attributes seem to be at the center of the gear gap debate, I propose that +2 all could serve as a reasonable middle ground, emphasizing quality of life and survivability over raw damage, even though it still benefits damage output to some extent.

However, it's important to recognize that 1 point of strength roughly translates to about 0.3 to 0.5 points of additional weapon damage for most classes, which I consider a fair trade-off for enhanced survivability. There are numerous stats that will never find a place in optimized gear setups, so +all offers a smoother power progression compared to stacking weapon or magic damage. The latter approach often focuses on reaching a critical stat threshold to defeat opponents in just a couple of hits. I am not opposed to reducing the gear gap; I simply believe that some underestimate the significance of meaningful gear at all skill levels.

Now, addressing the gear gap, the reality is that it often benefits less skilled players more than they might realize. Many individuals overestimate their skill levels and then complain about gear when they engage in fights they shouldn't have won. They perceive the "skill-gap" problem as their inability to aggressively confront well-geared players and simply overpower them with a few extra hits during the fight. However, some players have significantly better gear for a reason, and in this relatively low-skill game, that reason is often their decision-making ability. In a low gear-gap environment, a more skilled player will still outperform you, even if that's not what many want to hear.

I must admit that it can be frustrating to wear high-end gear and get defeated by a player who is under-equipped or only has a blue or purple weapon. A prime example of this was the rogue meta, where naked rogues with blue or purple daggers were capable of eliminating nearly any class regardless of gear. This strategy equalized the gear advantage and created one of the most toxic metas in the game.

This game is inherently balanced around the principles of risk and reward. If you are risking gear worth 5k+ Dark and Darker gold, it should significantly influence the outcomes. In a low gear-gap environment, why would anyone bother bringing in valuable gear when the risk/reward ratio is heavily skewed? To draw a comparison, imagine playing poker where I bet $5k, but you can continue to play with just $1. In such a scenario, why would I ever bet significantly? It becomes a discouraging cycle where no one brings gear, and progression becomes stagnant, potentially harming the game's long-term appeal.

Presently, even a well-geared novice player stands a chance against a less-equipped veteran. By reducing the gear gap, we risk eliminating the very scenarios where less skilled players can defeat more skilled ones due to their greater investment in the run. Games like Mordhau come to mind, where facing a heavily geared veteran can be discouraging, but this is the trade-off we make to ensure that lesser skilled players have a chance when they invest more into their gear.

I appreciate your patience with this extensive discussion. I am open to feedback and willing to reconsider my perspective if you believe it is flawed, given that I approach this game as a high-extraction player.

TL;DR: Many players overestimate their skill levels, and the gear gap actually allows less skilled players to win when they've invested more into their gear. A gear gap is essential for the game's longevity, although its magnitude could be adjusted.