EQ II becoming less solo freindly?

[Yeebo]

<DIV>Rumor has it that there are changes to the combat system on test that will make it harder for most classes to solo than it currently is.  Is this true?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I know that many folks  feel that that the best thing for the game would be if roughly 80% of the classes had to get a group just to be playable, while the remaining 20% should be ungodly soloers (and still quite handy in a group).   That's fine, but if this happens to EQ II, then when choosing one of the "group freindly" classes I want to see giant red warning come up that says "DANGER: RAGEING GIMPTARD AT SOLOING!  This class not recommended for casual play."</DIV>

[MaxLi]

MMOs are community based games.  There are plenty of great RPGs out there that one can play by one's self ... Elder Scroll III: Morrowind being a quick example, Knights of the Old Republic being another.  Having the ability to solo is important and should be integrated into the game.  However, there should no NO benefit ... absolutely none ... to soloing when compared to grouping.  XP should be slow, loot should be crap, the game should (almost) be unfun.  The game community mimics real life communities, get involved or be left behind ... politics, corporations, cities, etc all prove this.  Loners tend not to get to far or to excel. On the same token, the game needs to provide good reasons to have full groups.  I get the best XP in a group of three and I think this is sad.  People should be wanting to fill up groups and joining the MMO community they play next to. <div></div>

[Goozman]

<DIV>Well, soloing as it is now is pretty pathetic. You can kill a orange solo mob in roughly 10 seconds; I don't think it should be <EM>that</EM> solo friendly.</DIV>

[EtoilePirate]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well, soloing as it is now is pretty pathetic. You can kill a orange solo mob in roughly 10 seconds; I don't think it should be <EM>that</EM> solo friendly.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Clearly, you don't play a scout.  As I progress towards level 40, I become more and more convinced that the Assassin, as much as I adore playing one, is the most useless class in the entire game.  I can take yellows about 60% of the time solo, but that's a struggle with significant downtime, even when I'm using the Really Good Food that my guildmate makes.  A downtiered group of four -- a solo mob -- can often wipe the floor with me even when it's blue, because once I'm stunned, I'm toast.  If my initial attack, from in stealth, misses, I'm toast.  (Most of the time.)  And I have absolutely no assets whatsoever for group play, with the exception of the basic disarming and evaccing that any scout can do.</P> <P>For what it's worth, combat on Test at this exact moment is the same as it is everywhere else, because the combat changes come in stages and were removed for a while for the to introduce a new part.  (Part three, without the addition of part four, made things... extraordinarily difficult, shall we say.)  When the combat changes on Test have been completed and re-introduced for testing, *then* we can worry more about what they do.  In the meantime, it's probably not worth getting out collective knickers in a twist over something that's purely hypothetical at the moment.</P>

[whya]

<DIV>Well according to the next expansion and adventure pack info,</DIV> <DIV>The Ldon idea , for those who played eq1, is coming back except these new instanced dungeons will not only be for groups but also for those who want to solo. I suppose no matter the new combat changes this idea may support those who want to solo. I certainly hope so.</DIV>

[whya]

<DIV>I feel soloing is way to friendly when it comes to fighting non heroic mobs but is way to hard when fighting a lvl1 and up heroic mob besides the xp rewards vary way to much between the two. Soloing as it is now does not reward the player enough and ulitmately forces the soloer to group just to gain the xp to level.  Possibly if a middle ground was reached then things might balance out. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To the scout disposition...I have to agree</DIV> <DIV>The scout was the best dps till about mid 30's then all of a sudden our dps stays the same but everyone else especially the brawler and monk class spikes leaving us scouts behind. This is making the scouts more of a novelty class than a truly formidiable asset to the group or the player. With low mitigation, low health, low dps (when in comparison to other classes at higher levels), and useless skills (again in comparison to other classes at higher levels) the scout classes above most other classes need the most balancing, in my opinion. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[TopHatJon]

<DIV>Where did this come from? The entire purpose of the combat changes is to make gamepay more balanced and enjoyable for every class whether solo or grouped.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[PhourZwanZig]

Ive been playing solo on the test server for months.. Even w/ the combat update I still can still solo.. Yes it tis a lil more tricky at times but it just makes the game a lil more enjoyable IMO.. But at the same time the MOB changes (think that update is on Live, dont know though cuz I dont play on the live servers) make it easier to solo group'd MOBs..  In my eyes the change in MOBs was on of the best things that were done to improve Solo'in.. Again thats just my honest opinion.. <div></div>

[stelle]

whos to say you are supposed to solo yellows like that? try some whites <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Yeebo]

As I said, it is just a rumor. Came from another message board at a MMORPG news site, but the poster hasn't provided any evidence.  Thought I could get the real skinny here.  This game is currently shockingly solo freindly for a SOE game (unless you play a scout class apparently, which I didn't know).  That's why the rumor seemed likely to me.  I would also like to see the game remain one where I can solo or group as the mood takes me (and time permits).  I work a good 60 hours a week.  I don't have enough play time to spend any of it standing around twiddling my thumbs waiting for a group very often.  I'm not trying to start a flame war, just hoping for solid info on whether one of the things I really like about this game is going to be removed. 

[Twixie]

<P>SOE has stated that they are going to make changes to the combat and spell system in game but haven't said when the changes are going to go live or what exactly they are. I have failed you though Yeebo I was going to post the thread I originally found on it but could not find it again. Sorry. They are also supposed to be putting something along the lines of the LDoN adventures. They are supposed to range from 20-50 for groups and solos. I solo probably 30% of the time and duo and small group (3 or 4 people) the rests of the time so the new dungeons will work out great depending on the XP they throw out. </P> <P>When I manage to locate either of these threads I'll post them here for you but some far I'm not having much luck finding them again.</P>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well, soloing as it is now is pretty pathetic. You can kill a orange solo mob in roughly 10 seconds; I don't think it should be <EM>that</EM> solo friendly.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You must play a warlock <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway you should be more efficent in a group with better ability to take on the heroic/named mobs.  BUT, every class should have the ability to go out and do some xp grinding or easy quest when they only have a couple hours to play .  I am all for groups, perfer hunting in one, specially if its people I know.  But some nights I want to play for a bit and just don't want to go back to EQlive where I am sitting on my butt in POK with the lovely LFG tag on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>V/R</DIV> <DIV>Blackoath 36th Troll Shadow Knight</DIV><p>Message Edited by Margen on <span class=date_text>06-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:33 AM</span>

[Jor]

<DIV>Where does the stupid idea comes that says that soloing is only for non network RPG ???</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's a really weird view of life... Heck RL is very open and with much interaction, but often I work alone ;b</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Really, I 'love' to be able to solo or group !  I solo more than I group and I have much interaction with other players and my guildes, crafters, etc..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What's not working currently :</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Soloing should be more 'furtive' way with great danger, because not every mob can be defeated solo. A start of EQII there was this sense of danger and you had to be very carefull.. What was broken is that you could not single out some mobs (gnoll... very rare to find solo gnoll...). What was needed was a few more solo version that you could hunt, with care, between the heroic group mobs...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now they went too far : most mobs are solo ; there's less danger ; there's not enough group content <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Soloing should be as rewarding as group, if not more (should be more dangerous and trickier).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh by the way, for me grouping is fun for player interaction, while soloing is much more intense and tactical.. Different pleasure</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Some classes, that 'should' be super soloer are useless as such : scouts. IHMO scouts should be ideal infiltrator, spy, snipper class. Thus they should solo like gods, but be less usefull in group. Strangely it's not the case : only brute force works <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So please, stop telling us soloing is not for this game ! Solo rules ! Group rules ! The game is better when both way are possible !</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Jorun on <span class=date_text>06-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:32 PM</span>

[KornRollKid]

<P><STRONG>Cant believe what im reading  qoute  (i can solo yellow or 2xdoubles ups) excuse me why are you playing an mmorpg?</STRONG></P> <P><STRONG>Everytime i read something like this it shakes my head these are the same people that ask that the game not get dumbed down yet complain about how they cant solo stuff.</STRONG></P> <P><STRONG>Well want challenge try another class say a coercer or illsusionist talk about no solo etc you really make me laugth.</STRONG></P> <P><STRONG>And hell like one said if your so  concerned about soloing why even play a mmorpg.</STRONG></P>

[Bergenson]

<DIV>One of the top selling points pre-launch was that the game would be more solo friendly than EQ1, and I have not been disappointed. If solo players are gimped to the point they were in EQ1 then I would spend a month to lvl even pre 40 and that would eliminate the enjoyment.  I can live with not being the top solo class, but do not destroy my ability to solo at all.  Those that complain about not being able to solo heroics or yellow/orange/reds really need to look at the descriptions of these encounters and give it a [Removed for Content] rest.</DIV>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaxLiao wrote:<BR>MMOs are community based games.  There are plenty of great RPGs out there that one can play by one's self ... Elder Scroll III: Morrowind being a quick example, Knights of the Old Republic being another.  Having the ability to solo is important and should be integrated into the game.  However, there should no NO benefit ... absolutely none ... to soloing when compared to grouping.  XP should be slow, loot should be crap, the game should (almost) be unfun.  The game community mimics real life communities, get involved or be left behind ... politics, corporations, cities, etc all prove this.  Loners tend not to get to far or to excel.<BR><BR>On the same token, the game needs to provide good reasons to have full groups.  I get the best XP in a group of three and I think this is sad.  People should be wanting to fill up groups and joining the MMO community they play next to.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Great, since you think that MMO's mimic real life communities and that we should all group in both, send me your phone and address so I can group with you for dinner, a movie, hell, make room because I am moving in with you so we can be grouped all the time.</P> <P>Its about time people stop thinking that MMORPG has the word 'group' in it anywhere, it doesnt.  The only 'G' that is in there stands for 'Game'  Massively Multiplayer *only* means 'many people playing in the same world'</P> <P>The ones that *have* to group to get ahead are the ones that cant accomplish anything on their own, are afraid to do something without others to back them up.  The loners have to *think* for themselves, be self sufficient, depend on themselves to accomplish something.</P> <P> </P>

[Aegori]

<P>Here's my experience from Test Server. You can still easily solo mobs as far as i've seen. The higher the con gets, the tougher the mob gets tho. You are much less likely to be able to solo yellow/orange/red mobs at higher levels when the combat changes occur. Basically, the con system is actually going to mean something. The higher con solo mobs and lower con group mobs will be more inline with the small grp (2-3 people) mentality. Soloing, however, doesn't extend to ^^ mobs. Soloers trying to attempt a ^^ mob get a swift beat down (even grey a few lvls below).</P> <P>What we havent seen yet is the ability/spell changes. These are likely to balance out our (and mob) damage outputs so we'll see the true effects of the changes. So to say at this point soloing isnt viable after the combat changes is very pre-emptive to say the least. However, just from my experience thus far... you will still be able to effectively solo after the combat changes.</P>

[EtoilePirate]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jorun wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) Some classes, that 'should' be super soloer are useless as such : scouts. IHMO scouts should be ideal infiltrator, spy, snipper class. Thus they should solo like gods, but be less usefull in group. Strangely it's not the case : only brute force works <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV>So please, stop telling us soloing is not for this game ! Solo rules ! Group rules ! The game is better when both way are possible !</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Exactly!  As an Assassin, I have no group buffs, no group stealth, nothing.  My primary skill is solo stealth.  I have four separate stealth skills (all yellow, and appropriately-leveled) at the moment.  Clearly, judging from that and form the fact that the majority of my attacks are both stealth-based and positional, I'm supposed to leap from the shadows, kill something swiftly, and melt back into them.  Assassin is not a group-friendly class and that SHOULD be okay.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And definitely ditto that about both should be possible.  I didn't learn to love playing in groups until I hit 27 or 28 and blew through 2 levels in 8 hours giant-hunting with people I'd never met before.  I like soloing, particularly as my primary character is an assassin.  I stealth out new zones at my own pace and do what suits me, when it suits me.  I also like playing in groups.  I have a great bunch of guildmates, and lots of friendly people on Test are a similar level, and when we run into each other we try to help each other out.  And sometimes we get together a raid's worth of people, and that's great fun, too.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the game should be playable however <EM>each player</EM> wants to do it.  Sure, some things are going to take longer than others.  And some things are never going to be doable alone.  But if I want to solo my way to 50, I should have that option.  Especially as a scout. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[MaxLi]

Sunrayn, eating and watching a movie have nothing to do with grouping.  Neither does your irrational logic.  The fact is, no one can be successful in life without others.  Sure, you can shop, cook, and even work on your own, but you cannot be successful (outside of being lucky).  I challenge you to find any successful person in the world that's a loner ... <plays jeopardy music> ... Albert Einstein ... did not work alone, he had a team. Lewic and Clark, Henry Hudson, Magellan, etc ... did not explore alone, they had quite a few people with them. Davie Crockett ... may have been the king of the wild frontier, but he had people around him. Donald Trump ... has many people working directly with him - lawyers, advisor, etc. Jerry Rice, Allan Iverson, Barry Bonds, etc ... do not work alone.  (Coaches, trainers, agents, lawyers, whithout whom they could not be where they are today) Name a successful one-person company? Name a successful one-person army?  (And snipers do not typically work alone.) Hell, even deer and duck hunters usually hunt with a buddy or two. The fact is, it takes multiple people to move ahead.  One person may be the brainchild or the motivating force, but one person can never accomplish anything truly successful alone.  If you want to continue to kill your solo mobs and get crap XP, fine by me.  But the good stuff (XP, loot, fun) should remain with the group and epic encounters. I'll say it again, MMOs mimic society.  Society is made up of people.  Loners in an MMO, just like those in real life, probably aren't going to make it ... at the very least they will find their road arduous - as it should be. <div></div>

[Daran]

<span><blockquote><hr>EtoilePB wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Jorun wrote: <div></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>2) Some classes, that 'should' be super soloer are useless as such : scouts. IHMO scouts should be ideal infiltrator, spy, snipper class. Thus they should solo like gods, but be less usefull in group. Strangely it's not the case : only brute force works <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div> <div>So please, stop telling us soloing is not for this game ! Solo rules ! Group rules ! The game is better when both way are possible !</div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Exactly!  As an Assassin, I have no group buffs, no group stealth, nothing.  My primary skill is solo stealth.  I have four separate stealth skills (all yellow, and appropriately-leveled) at the moment.  Clearly, judging from that and form the fact that the majority of my attacks are both stealth-based and positional, I'm supposed to leap from the shadows, kill something swiftly, and melt back into them.  Assassin is not a group-friendly class and that SHOULD be okay.</div> <div> </div> <div>And definitely ditto that about both should be possible.  I didn't learn to love playing in groups until I hit 27 or 28 and blew through 2 levels in 8 hours giant-hunting with people I'd never met before.  I like soloing, particularly as my primary character is an assassin.  I stealth out new zones at my own pace and do what suits me, when it suits me.  I also like playing in groups.  I have a great bunch of guildmates, and lots of friendly people on Test are a similar level, and when we run into each other we try to help each other out.  And sometimes we get together a raid's worth of people, and that's great fun, too.</div> <div> </div> <div>So the game should be playable however <em>each player</em> wants to do it.  Sure, some things are going to take longer than others.  And some things are never going to be doable alone.  But if I want to solo my way to 50, I should have that option.  Especially as a scout. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><hr></blockquote>The problem is that EQ is about brute force rather than finnesse, EQ1 had the mindset of "if you cant kill it with 20 people, hit it with 40". EQ2 is a little better as it limits the size of the force that can be used against an encounter. So a scout class, as its mostly finnesse and intelligence and guile that gets us by in life, doesnt meet the brute force requirements, I think the only multiplayer game of the genre that pulled off a good scout class was neverwinter nights, and at one point the scouts/rogues became godlike (hide in plain sight).</span><div></div>

[Sunrayn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaxLiao wrote:<BR><BR>Albert Einstein ... did not work alone, he had a team.<BR>Lewic and Clark, Henry Hudson, Magellan, etc ... did not explore alone, they had quite a few people with them.<BR>Davie Crockett ... may have been the king of the wild frontier, but he had people around him.<BR>Donald Trump ... has many people working directly with him - lawyers, advisor, etc.<BR>Jerry Rice, Allan Iverson, Barry Bonds, etc ... do not work alone.  (Coaches, trainers, agents, lawyers, whithout whom they could not be where they are today)<BR><BR>Name a successful one-person company?<BR>Name a successful one-person army?  (And snipers do not typically work alone.)<BR>Hell, even deer and duck hunters usually hunt with a buddy or two.<BR><BR>The fact is, it takes multiple people to move ahead.  One person may be the brainchild or the motivating force, but one person can never accomplish anything truly successful alone.  If you want to continue to kill your solo mobs and get crap XP, fine by me.  But the good stuff (XP, loot, fun) should remain with the group and epic encounters.<BR><BR>I'll say it again, MMOs mimic society.  Society is made up of people.  Loners in an MMO, just like those in real life, probably aren't going to make it ... at the very least they will find their road arduous - as it should be.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, none of those people had a 'team'.  Albert Einstein is the one remembered, not his group.  Donald Trump has the big bucks, the fame, his lackeys were not part of the group, they were mercenaries, paid for their work.  He got the big reward from their work.  Jerry Rice's trainers arent the famous ones, they got paid to do their job.  No group there, sorry.</P> <P>You are right about one thing, Societies are made up of people, individuals. Some individuals come together to boost one of their 'group' to posterity, riches, fame.  When it is all over with, one person gets the big reward, his name on the company, to be a  spokesperson for Nike.</P> <P>A group comes together to work for a common goal, a reward they all share in, equally.  How many rewards in EQ or real life for that matter are shared equally amoung a group?</P> <P>My wife and I play an online game.  We see other people, talk to other people, just like in a real life society.  We just choose to do certain things in Norrath without the help of others.  We make our own way, craft all our own stuff from things we gathered.  Why should that be made unfun,  unrewarding?<BR></P> <P> </P>

[Nolrog]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yeebo wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Rumor has it<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The only thing reliable about rumors, is that they are almost always 100% false.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> As I said, it is just a rumor. Came from another message board at a MMORPG news site, but the poster hasn't provided any evidence. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Especially when there's no evidence to back them up.  I'd say take this with a grain of salt.  SOE seems to be working hard to bring more solo/small group content to the game (because they have to compete with WoW.)  Check out some of the info on the new expansion.  Some zones will scale based on your level and apparantly group size. </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Nolrog on <SPAN class=date_text>06-09-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>08:11 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Nolrog on <span class=date_text>06-09-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:11 AM</span>

[whya]

<DIV>Guild Wars had a very interesting idea for soloing but is probably incompatible with EQ2.</DIV> <DIV>They allowed "henchmen" or hired npcs to group with you. I never had to wait for a group but I also felt that it really took away all the challenges and ultimately made the game to easy. I havent seen this idea anywhere else and it did make finding a group much easier than waiting hours on end with lfg up and sending random tells to people askin them if they wanna group <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[Jeridor]

I have not completely played through GW, but I've found the henchman setup to basically suck.  You really need a full compliment of henchmen if you don't have group members, because soloing is either impossible or ridiculously slow depending on circumstance.  At the same time, the henchman would be great except they don't scale to your level, they are based at X level depending on where you pick them up, and you can't keep them if you use the map travel feature, so you are sometimes forced to take longer routes if you want henchmen closer to your level. <div></div>

[whya]

I had the same experience with the henchmen but with all their flaws sometimes it was just great that I could get a full group of npcs whenever I wanted other than waiting endlessly to start one up or be inviited into one. When it comes down to it, I would choose the option of being able to start a group up at anytime without the hassles of each members personal problems, time limits, time zones, etc. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[jwdanie]

I play a scout class and don't have a problem soloing, making money, finding a group, or having fun.  My equipment right now isn't up to par (but one more level and I can equip a whole bunch of great stuff that I have) and most of the people that I know that play scouts have the same experience with it.  Stop complaining about how your character can't solo, or can't find a group, etc. and spend an equal amount of time figuring out what you can do differently to make it better to do stuff like that.

[jwdanie]

<DIV>Before anyone asks... I am currently level 41, out DPS pretty much everybody (except the warlocks, but I can take a few shots) and have felt tough since about level 21.</DIV>

[btennison]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jorun wrote:<BR> <DIV>Where does the stupid idea comes that says that soloing is only for non network RPG ???</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Soloing should be more 'furtive' way with great danger, because not every mob can be defeated solo. A start of EQII there was this sense of danger and you had to be very carefull.. What was broken is that you could not single out some mobs (gnoll... very rare to find solo gnoll...). What was needed was a few more solo version that you could hunt, with care, between the heroic group mobs...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now they went too far : most mobs are solo ; there's less danger ; there's not enough group content <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#cc0000>I agree with this thought totally! As a scout, I don't expect to stroll through large groups, I should have to sneak, hide and pick off the strays when possible. It's a dangerous world out there and I don't want them to take any of that danger away. I never expected SOE to make mobs easier, just to put in a few more solo mobs I could pick off. It should be just as dangerous for the group as ever.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Soloing should be as rewarding as group, if not more (should be more dangerous and trickier).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh by the way, for me grouping is fun for player interaction, while soloing is much more intense and tactical.. Different pleasure</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> jwdaniels wrote:<BR>I play a scout class and don't have a problem soloing, making money, finding a group, or having fun.  My equipment right now isn't up to par (but one more level and I can equip a whole bunch of great stuff that I have) and most of the people that I know that play scouts have the same experience with it.  Stop complaining about how your character can't solo, or can't find a group, etc. and spend an equal amount of time figuring out what you can do differently to make it better to do stuff like that. <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I also agree with jwdaniels. My ranger is just now approaching level 30 and no problems so far. I think a lot of the problems people have when soloing are self imposed. I don't know how many times I've examined a group member and found mostly grey armor. I grouped with a 28 brawler the other day who was having a tremendous problem just staying alive. The two of us would take on a group of 4 gnolls and I would use arrows on his opponents while still fighting mine and when the fight was over I still had full health & he would be in the yellow. I examined him and all of his armor was grey, every bit! I asked him & he said good armor was too expensive. I spend a lot of money keeping my armor in the yellow (at least) and buying the best food & drink (yeah, I had to loan him food/drink.) I think these things make as much difference in survival as having the best weapon.</P> <P>Stop (or at least slow down) saving money for a horse and spend some gold on your weapons, armor & spells!</P>

[Goozman]

<DIV>Sorry, but I'm not a warlock. I play Fury, Paladin, and Monk. With Monk and Paladin, you can kill green-orange solo mobs in a matter of seconds by just using every combat skill available + 1 or 2 HO's... there's no healing necessary. With Fury you put your proc buffs on, melee and do maybe 2 divine judgement HO's and you are done. Never having to heal...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I have a reeeeeeally hard time believing it is difficult for a scout of any type to solo solo mobs, if they arent just standing there doing nothing. You start with your flank ability, and spam abilities while meleeing with poison inbetween, mob dead in a matter of seconds. And seeing as how scouts have posted saying they have little difficulty, I am inclined to agree with this theory.</DIV>

[observer]

<DIV>xp debt + grouping = NOT FUN</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>get rid of xp debt and add more group mobs and the problems wouldnt be so bad with nobody liking to group</DIV>

[EtoilePirate]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Goozman wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I have a reeeeeeally hard time believing it is difficult for a scout of any type to solo solo mobs, if they arent just standing there doing nothing. You start with your flank ability, and spam abilities while meleeing with poison inbetween, mob dead in a matter of seconds. And seeing as how scouts have posted saying they have little difficulty, I am inclined to agree with this theory.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>I start nearly every battle with a flank ability that does roughly 800-1000 damage and has a 4 minute reuse timer.  Good start.  And I melee with poison.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But as much as I appreciate the implication that I'm either stupid or incompetent, I am sure in this case that the fault does not lie entirely with me.  When an important skill reaches mastery at 143 but isn't replaced until 183, that adversely affects me because I'm trying to attack white or yellow mobs with a greyed-out skill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There's also only so much spamming of abilities you can do soloing when all except four (five if you could one that barely does any damage at all, but anything is better than nothing) require you to be in stealth behind the enemy.  I do much more waiting for resuse timers than I'd like to, unless I'm fighting somewhere amenable to kiting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The type of mob matters, as well.  I've been fighting in the Feerrott for three straight days, and I can solo trios of animal-types (lizards, dragonflies, sattars, fiends, whatever) in my sleep.  But I still can't take on a trio of white (non-heroic) lizardmen without a backup, and I sincerely doubt I'll be able to when they're blue either.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've been assured by a 50 assassin in my guild that in fact, the assassin's life does suck in the 30s (with a marked improvement at 38.6), because your skills simply haven't caught up to the mobs you're trying to face.  And that's just not cool, and it's also not the player's fault.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And trust me.  As I'm leveling my baby toons... playing a fighter is NOTHING like playing a scout.  My little crusader can do things I've never dreamd of on my main.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For all that, the assassin is my favorite by far.  The play style suits me, and I enjoy the scout archetype more than any other.  But genuinely not being ablt to fight the same way or the same mobs as a mage, fighter, or priest is not the same as spinning on my thumb instead of playing.</DIV><p>Message Edited by EtoilePB on <span class=date_text>06-12-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:36 PM</span>

[Reality]

<P>As a lvl 50 Swashie with 3 pieces of ebon armor .. Imbued ebon leafblade.. imbued ruby rings and some fabled gear.. I still cannot solo a lvl 47 solo mob without running the risk of death! Not to mention some of the lvl 44+ mobs have been known to take a bite out of me. </P> <P>I have changed my tatics .. upped my gear.. tried just about everything and still end up screaming to a friend to rez me =P </P> <P>This imho sucks for the scout classes.. I know I am not alone there are plenty of scouts that insist they have no problems most of which are lvl 40 or below.  Since around lvl 43 my soloing ability has dropped so much .. yet my DPS has not increased even with adpet3s ? </P> <P>Something is very wrong here =) </P>

[Kizee]

<P>/shrug</P> <P>I agree assassins arn't the greatest class for soloing but when I was leveling I never had any problems killing a white/yellow con solo mob if it jumped me (without and opening stealth style or bow kiting).</P> <P>When the combat changes go in is another story tho....</P>

[jarlaxle8]

<p>Message Edited by jarlaxle888 on <span class=date_text>06-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 PM</span>

[jarlaxle8]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaxLiao wrote:<BR>MMOs are community based games.  There are plenty of great RPGs out there that one can play by one's self ... Elder Scroll III: Morrowind being a quick example, Knights of the Old Republic being another.  Having the ability to solo is important and should be integrated into the game.  However, there should no NO benefit ... absolutely none ... to soloing when compared to grouping.  XP should be slow, loot should be crap, the game should (almost) be unfun.  The game community mimics real life communities, get involved or be left behind ... politics, corporations, cities, etc all prove this.  Loners tend not to get to far or to excel.<BR><BR>On the same token, the game needs to provide good reasons to have full groups.  I get the best XP in a group of three and I think this is sad.  People should be wanting to fill up groups and joining the MMO community they play next to.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> <P>basically, saying MMOs are community based games, you are right. but your idea of solo experience beeing crap and unfun i really don't like.</P> <P>i don't know, but if you always find a group which want's to do something where you get a bit more then exp out of it, gratz to you. i normally don't get a group right away. when i don't find a group, should i just hang out in qeynos, have lfg on and be bored to death? or go out and try to fight mobs which will probably kill me outright, or others that give nothing worthwile? or do boring quests? i don't think so.</P> <P>now, should i just quit EQ2 and play KOTOR and other, offline RPGs? yes, i could. but, surprise, i do like social aspects. i do like to be in a group. but when i play KOTOR and have a great time solo, i will never ever have any idea when there's a group around which want's to do a fun dungeon crawl.</P> <P>and the other aspect is: i am quite quick sometimes at playing them through, and you don't have such great options to explore in offline RPGs. perhaps in morrowind, but to me it was just a lifeless big world. yep big and offline and solo can be pretty lifeless, because no other players are around. even when sometimes solo, a MMO has a kind of feel like it's a living world to it. and that feeling should not be lessened by boring solo content just because you are solo at the moment.</P> <P>as for mimicking RL: who needs all aspects of RL in a game? if i want RL kind of things, i can just turn off the computer and go out. and anyway, strangely enough, i tend to get along well without having to get to know 10 new people every day. :smileytongue: you just can't compare RL (work, family, friends) socials with game (adventuring) socials.</P> <P>in my opinion, SOE should cater to all type of gamers. some people just don't have loads of free time on their hand that it does not matter to them if they log on, turn lfg on and wait while reading a book or watching TV. so i do hope they don't listen to all the 'we want you to be forced to group' hardcore gamers and nerf solo content so it's just hell to play. i had enough of that in EQ1.</P> <P>---------------------------<BR>Ryilan<BR>Wood Elf Ranger 26<BR>Woodworker 22<BR>Riverwind Alliance<BR>Runnyeye<BR>---------------------------</P></DIV>

[jarlaxle8]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MaxLiao wrote:<BR>Sunrayn, eating and watching a movie have nothing to do with grouping.  Neither does your irrational logic.  The fact is, no one can be successful in life without others.  Sure, you can shop, cook, and even work on your own, but you cannot be successful (outside of being lucky).  I challenge you to find any successful person in the world that's a loner ... ...<BR><BR>Albert Einstein ... did not work alone, he had a team.<BR>Lewic and Clark, Henry Hudson, Magellan, etc ... did not explore alone, they had quite a few people with them.<BR>Davie Crockett ... may have been the king of the wild frontier, but he had people around him.<BR>Donald Trump ... has many people working directly with him - lawyers, advisor, etc.<BR>Jerry Rice, Allan Iverson, Barry Bonds, etc ... do not work alone.  (Coaches, trainers, agents, lawyers, whithout whom they could not be where they are today)<BR><BR>Name a successful one-person company?<BR>Name a successful one-person army?  (And snipers do not typically work alone.)<BR>Hell, even deer and duck hunters usually hunt with a buddy or two.<BR><BR>The fact is, it takes multiple people to move ahead.  One person may be the brainchild or the motivating force, but one person can never accomplish anything truly successful alone.  If you want to continue to kill your solo mobs and get crap XP, fine by me.  But the good stuff (XP, loot, fun) should remain with the group and epic encounters.<BR><BR>I'll say it again, MMOs mimic society.  Society is made up of people.  Loners in an MMO, just like those in real life, probably aren't going to make it ... at the very least they will find their road arduous - as it should be.<BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>boy, you really are in the 'let's simulate RL' line, aren't you?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>well, you say teams in RL are more successful. well, that's true. but as much as i know, albert einstein came up with relatvity theory alone. in his free time. as lot's of other famous scientists, which came up with new theories while working on it alone. or maybe it's that, scientists are loners and don't get so much reward for their efforts then business people. well, business people are not really the group people either, their success is based on using other people...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>as for 'team' in real life: i go to work in the morning, work together with the others in my team, go home in the evening. first of all, you don't get much choice, you just have your team. second, you have your team as is, right at hand. you don't go to work and turn on the 'lfg' flag and sit on your butt till someone comes along and wants to do the same as you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>the other thing is: i go to work in the morning, come home in the evening and THEN i do things i enjoy, either with friends or alone. and, in my view, a game should be enjoyment, not all the hindering things you get in RL.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>---------------------------<BR>Ryilan<BR>Wood Elf Ranger 26<BR>Woodworker 22<BR>Riverwind Alliance<BR>Runnyeye<BR>---------------------------</DIV><p>Message Edited by jarlaxle888 on <span class=date_text>08-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:34 PM</span>

[Keegant]

<P>Can finally type somthing in the text box.</P> <P> </P> <P>First want to pointout that I am not a scout, but my wife is. I am a wizzy. I personally can solo white ^^ mobs though it takes all my resources and the mob resisting a certian spell means just about instant death. She plays a ranger and has 3 major problems. She can barly solo blue mobs most of the time. She has next thing to top of the line gear, and uses good tactics. First magor problem: almost all of her decient abilities require her to be in stealth behind the target. How do you do this when soloing? Second magor problem is cost. What non scout class has to PAY for their DPS? She goes through a stack of arrows about ever 4-6 combats when she duos with me. Stacks of arrows cost her about 2-3g. Then she has to buy poison and that adds to cost. So she is paying about 10g every 15-20 combats, just to get her best DPS and even then she is still doing about half what my wizzy does, and I get my DPS for free.</P> <P> </P> <P>Onto the topic at hand. I wish they would take out about 75% of the solo stuff they just put in and put back in the group content. Solo should be possible, but it is to the point where it is more benificial to solo then it is to group for most classes, as the xp/loot of solo mobs are just too plain high. Cut the xp that solo mobs give in about half and you may start to get there. Its sad to play an alt with newbs now because none of them learn how to group at lower levels, like we did. They are grouping for the first time at around 30 and they just suck at it, at a level where you can't afford to suck at it like you can at 15. This forces them to stop grouping even more. Soon you will have people doing nothing but soloing to 50.</P>

[Chesa]

<DIV><FONT size=2>Famous loners span every era, every realm. Albert Einstein, Anne Rice, Michelangelo, Barry Bonds, Isaac Newton, Franz Kafka, Stanley Kubrick, Janet Reno, John Lennon, James Michener, Emily Dickinson, Alexander Pope, Hermann Hesse, Paul Westerberg, Georgia O’Keeffe, Kurt Cobain, Haruki Murakami, Gustav Klimt, Charles Schulz, Dan Clowes, Piet Mondrian, Saint Anthony, H.P. Lovecraft, Beatrix Potter and Joe DiMaggio....<BR><BR>Not to mention Superman, Batman and Shiva.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Famous loners: <A href="http://www.annelirufus.com/famousloners.html" target=_blank>http://www.annelirufus.com/famousloners.html</A></DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.theantisocialclub.com/asc_page_023.htm" target=_blank>http://www.theantisocialclub.com/asc_page_023.htm</A></DIV> <DIV>and an interesting article:</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://bostonworks.boston.com/globe/view_cube/archive/072003.shtml" target=_blank>http://bostonworks.boston.com/globe/view_cube/archive/072003.shtml</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"<FONT size=2>No two loners are alike, but all of us have one thing in common: we like to be alone. We like it. Everyone else - nonloners, that is — can't stand to be alone. They squirm. They feel ashamed. They yearn for company when they're alone. They're bored and don't know what to do. They're lonely. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><EM>We're</EM> not. "</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Just some fun reading, I thought <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But I digress, as usual...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>

[Keegant]

<P>Chesa, what are you talking about? I guess some people have a perverted discription of loner. Just because one person in a group becomes famous does NOT mean they were a loner.</P> <P> </P> <P>Using your example:</P> <P>Einstein: worked with a team of scientests thoughout most of his life. Rarely even did ANYTHING alone.</P> <P>Anne Rice: Would have never gotten anywhere without a publisher and an editor.</P> <P>Michelangelo: had a team of artists under him that did much of his work. History has proven that most famous artists in history actually did very little of the work they are given credit for. They were just the leader of a team that did the work.</P> <P>Barry Bonds: This and all other athletes are in no way shape or form loners. Most of them have teams, and without the team they are NOTHING. Point in fact here is Kobe: no team = nothing. Even the ones that don't play on a team like golfers, have coaches and others that they would not be what they are without.</P> <P>Newton: See Einstein</P> <P>Lennon: where would he be without the recording company? His agent?</P> <P>I can go on an on for each of the people that I know on your list, but I have made my point.</P> <P>Even for your fictious charicters, superman had lois, batman had robin.</P> <P>The only loners that I can think of off the top of my head are most serial killers. Thats what happens to the human brain when one denounces group and goes solo.</P> <P> </P>

[btennison]

<span><blockquote><hr>Chesa wrote:<div><font size="2">Famous loners span every era, every realm. Albert Einstein, Anne Rice, Michelangelo, Barry Bonds, Isaac Newton, Franz Kafka, Stanley Kubrick, Janet Reno, John Lennon, James Michener, Emily Dickinson, Alexander Pope, Hermann Hesse, Paul Westerberg, Georgia O’Keeffe, Kurt Cobain, Haruki Murakami, Gustav Klimt, Charles Schulz, Dan Clowes, Piet Mondrian, Saint Anthony, H.P. Lovecraft, Beatrix Potter and Joe DiMaggio....Not to mention Superman, Batman and Shiva.</font></div> <div> </div>"<font size="2">No two loners are alike, but all of us have one thing in common: we like to be alone. We like it. Everyone else - nonloners, that is — can't stand to be alone. They squirm. They feel ashamed. They yearn for company when they're alone. They're bored and don't know what to do. They're lonely. </font> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2"><em>We're</em> not. "</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">Just some fun reading, I thought <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But I digress, as usual...</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div><hr></blockquote>I agree with much of what's posted here; I also like to be alone much of the time. In RL, I'll often go fishing, hunting, or (name activity here) alone if none of my friends are available to come along. I also like grouping with friends if possible. The difference is, in RL, I have no intention of hunting Kodiak Brown Bear alone! The occasional deer or elk is plenty, "big game" requires a different approach. The loners mentioned above are standouts in their fields for the most part but didn't always act totally alone. How do you think a game between Joe DiMaggio and the Huston Astros would turn out? I think Joe might have been on the hind [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] on that one and might have gone looking for a group. I expect there to be enough "solo content" that I can go out and solve a few quest, adventure and have fun alone. I DON'T expect the ability to take on huge group mobs or solve quests that take groups or raids. I expect a nice mix of stuff I can do when alone and stuff to do when I find a group. For the most part I think SOE is working towards that and will get there eventually. In the mean time, I'm just happy to play!</span><div></div>

[Chesa]

<P>Keegantir, actually, those were all quotes from the links there; only the last line is attributable to me.  I'm an awkward typist and forgot the quotes <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  However, my perverted definition of "loner" is that those folks mostly don't care to socialize much...I don't think anyone would say that Barry Bonds is a social lion, or that Emily Dickinson was the life of the party.  I just posted some interesting links, though, and really didn't expect to get toasted for it.  That's one reason so many people solo or only group with firends; they've had enough of rude, angry people.</P> <P> </P>

[Keegant]

<P>The problem with typing and the internet, with out face to face interaction is that good natured debate gets interpeted as "rude and angry".</P> <P>I was not directing the perverted coment at you, but at the people that made those sites. </P> <P> </P> <P>I guess the biggest problem we are having here, is one version of societies view of loners is trying to be equivilated to soloing in EQ. It is my opinion that being anti-social is not the same as soloing in EQ. Doing things alone is the same as soloing in EQ, and as I have pointed out, people rarely do things alone.</P>