reasons quit playin eq1

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I quit playing eq1 after having played for 2 years:

1. Because with each expansion my computer became more and more obsolete to
the point of being almost unplayable and I wasn't willing to fork out
another $1000 for a new one.

2. The game had become too predictable and repetitious. Eg. find a group,
camp, wait for mobs, kill mobs, distribute loot, repeat.

3. Soloing was almost impossible.

4. Doing anything other than camping gave very few rewards.

I'm thinking of giving eq2 a try, but some of the things I've read are
giving me pause. It sounds like there are lots of complaints about getting
all your hardware configured to be able to have smooth play. (My 'puter is 5
years old so I am shopping for a new system)

Also I'm wondering if in their effort to eliminate kill stealing, they have
made the playing enviroment too controlled. Frankly I didn't think ksing was
that much a problem to begin with. Most of the time the ksing was a mistake
and not intentional.

Is eq2 even more geared toward grouping than eq1? I've heard that they've
minimized being able to buff someone not in your group. I liked to be able
give someone buffs in exchange for $ or to help a lower lvl get through the
zone.

Is eq2 more of the same with better graphics?

I have only seen the screen shots. (trailer wouldn't even run on my 'puter)
The graphics look fantastic, but is play worth the $ and effort?
44 answers Last reply
More about reasons quit playin
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:

    >3. Soloing was almost impossible.

    Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

    Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    > <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >
    > Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    > 70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    > you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >

    A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:23:43 -0500, "Kevin T. Matthews"
    <matthews@knology.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >> <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>
    >> Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    >> 70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    >> you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>
    >
    >A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.

    Tell that to Woody over at GU. He was still soloing Vhah into his
    50's. Yes, it's slow, but possible.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

    Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Kevin T. Matthews wrote:
    > "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    > news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >><wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>
    >>Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    >>70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    >>you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>
    >
    >
    > A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.
    >
    Nonsense, I played a warrior to level 30 and soloed most of that, it
    really wasn't particularly hard to do so, its just a matter of picking
    your fights: you want mobs that don't run (because you have no snare)
    and that you can get single (because you have no way to park them) and
    that you can kill on the hp you can get back via bind wounds.

    When I did it, that meant 50%, or slightly more if you had a lot of HP
    gear. They've changed that now; when I did the same thing with my
    berserker I could bind up much higher, which meant I could take on
    harder mobs. And the regen rate was also changed, so that it actually
    made sense to wait for full hp. Soloing a warrior was far from
    impossible before, but post changes, it must be even easier.

    If there's a class that can't solo to 70, I suppose it would be the
    rogue, the only class who's ability to deal decent damage relies on the
    mob facing in the other direction. And even there I have my doubts, as
    I'm not sufficiently conversant with the class to know if they can get
    ahold of a fear and snare kit of some kind.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800 in
    <Gioqd.42$NO5.17@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, "wade shepard"
    <wshepard@mn.rr.com> graced the world with this thought:

    >1. Because with each expansion my computer became more and more obsolete to
    >the point of being almost unplayable and I wasn't willing to fork out
    >another $1000 for a new one.

    After three new systems, I won't buy even a <component> in order to
    keep playing at this point. This figures heavily into why I won't be
    playing EQ2, because you can bet your ass in one year they're going to
    require everyone to be getting something new. My entire C drive has
    nothing but Windows and EQ on it, and I'm running out of room.

    No thanks. No more.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    wade shepard wrote:

    > Also I'm wondering if in their effort to eliminate kill stealing,
    > they have made the playing enviroment too controlled. Frankly I
    > didn't think ksing was that much a problem to begin with. Most of the
    > time the ksing was a mistake and not intentional.

    What "too-controlled?" Now you can't KS. Or
    power-level. So what?

    > I've heard that they've minimized being able to buff someone
    > not in your group. I liked to be able give someone buffs in exchange
    > for $ or to help a lower lvl get through the zone.

    First, a low-level that needs help getting through the zone
    shouldn't be there. If you want to help, group with them
    and escort them through. This isn't EQ1 where you needed
    to run through high-level zones to get to another low-level
    hunting zone.

    Second, yeah, you can't buff someone outside your group.
    And if you group and they leave the group, they lose the
    buff right away. So no more KEI-queens or whatever.
    And no more druid/wizard port-whores. Long overdue,
    IMO.

    > I have only seen the screen shots. (trailer wouldn't even run on my
    > 'puter) The graphics look fantastic, but is play worth the $ and
    > effort?

    Seems to me -- IMO -- but it's still too early to see what
    the mid-game will be like -- and the end-game is unknown.
    One thing to remember -- EQ2 supposedly has *200*
    levels and only 50 in the base game. Even the level
    50's won't have a clue what the mid-game will be like...

    But they've done some things "right" IMO. It seems
    they addressed the biggest problems in EQ fairly well.
    Of course, it IS a grouping game. Solo players CAN
    play, but the game is organized around groups. A
    player who groups will level faster, get more drops,
    etc. I don't have a problem with that *as long as I
    can sign in for an hour or so and still do *something*
    when I can't or don't want to LFG.* And there's
    more than enough solo content and soloing ability to
    do that, at least.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "wade shepard" <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:Gioqd.42$NO5.17@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    >I quit playing eq1 after having played for 2 years:
    >
    > 1. Because with each expansion my computer became more and more obsolete
    > to
    > the point of being almost unplayable and I wasn't willing to fork out
    > another $1000 for a new one.
    >
    > 2. The game had become too predictable and repetitious. Eg. find a group,
    > camp, wait for mobs, kill mobs, distribute loot, repeat.
    >
    > 3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >
    > 4. Doing anything other than camping gave very few rewards.

    After 5 years I have quit a few times for the ALL of the same reasons as you
    mention, plus my RL is too busy to log on for more than 1-2 hours LFG for
    almost all of it. This time I quit forever (gave away all gear). I have
    been giving WoW a try, and so far #1 is no issue on 2 year old system
    1024x768 all graphics turned up, #3 is not an issue SO FAR (lvl 18 Druid),
    #4 quests give good XP and loot. I think #2 will happen in all games. WoW
    actually forces you to do some quests to get "abilities" every now and then,
    so that puts you in a story world for a few minutes.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <Gioqd.42$NO5.17@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, wade shepard wrote:
    > I'm thinking of giving eq2 a try, but some of the things I've read are
    > giving me pause. It sounds like there are lots of complaints about getting
    > all your hardware configured to be able to have smooth play. (My 'puter is
    > 5 years old so I am shopping for a new system)

    You can change most settings in-game to adjust between looks and speed, and
    there is a handy drop-down list with a range of presets, ranging from best
    appearance to best performance. With a 2.4 GHz P4 and GeForce FX 5900XT
    with 128 MB of video RAM, on the middle setting most places are OK, but in
    some city zones it gets slow, so I just bring up the video options, and drop
    it down to one of the more performance-oriented settings.

    Give your system details, and someone will probably jump in with a similar
    system and tell you what it is like.

    > Also I'm wondering if in their effort to eliminate kill stealing, they
    > have made the playing enviroment too controlled. Frankly I didn't think
    > ksing was that much a problem to begin with. Most of the time the ksing
    > was a mistake and not intentional.

    It is kind of weird. When playing a Priest class in other games, one of the
    enjoyable aspects of that is the drive-by save--finding someone who is going
    to lose, and has gone to far to be able to run away, so they are bravely
    fighting on, to their seemingly inevitable doom, and then, out of nowhere,
    they are healed! Victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat! Yadda yadda
    yadda.

    WoW is interesting in this respect: if you engage a mob, only you (or your
    group) will get the XP for killing it, or loot, but others can still attack
    it, or buff you. So, they can't kill steal you, but they can help.

    > Is eq2 even more geared toward grouping than eq1? I've heard that they've
    > minimized being able to buff someone not in your group. I liked to be able
    > give someone buffs in exchange for $ or to help a lower lvl get through
    > the zone.

    The thing that really stands out about EQ2 at the lower levels is the HUGE
    number of quests. At least up to the low teens, you'll typically have 20 to
    40 pending quests, most doable solo, and many involving interesting story.

    So, even if EQ2 turns out to *require* grouping at high level, if you just
    play it through the low levels twice, thinking of it as a single player game
    that happens to have other people running around in it--it will be worth it.

    --
    --Tim Smith
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Lance Berg wrote:
    > If there's a class that can't solo to 70, I suppose it would be the
    > rogue, the only class who's ability to deal decent damage relies on the
    > mob facing in the other direction. And even there I have my doubts, as
    > I'm not sufficiently conversant with the class to know if they can get
    > ahold of a fear and snare kit of some kind.

    I soloed a rogue to 51 personally. I have no doubt I could have
    continued from that point, but EQ2 intervened. Intimidate works pretty
    well and the new hp regen formula makes downtime less than medding
    before KEI existed.

    Any class can be soloed in EQ1.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <ARpqd.94364$6w6.77361@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
    dbgbdwolf@gte.net says...

    > First, a low-level that needs help getting through the zone
    > shouldn't be there. If you want to help, group with them
    > and escort them through. This isn't EQ1 where you needed
    > to run through high-level zones to get to another low-level
    > hunting zone.

    Lol...reminds me of something that happened yesterday.

    I recently accepted an invitation to a guild, and some twit in guild
    chat wanted to know where to take his 13th level for good xp... so I
    suggested Kurns or PC. He had never heard of Kurns and claimed he was
    too low for B1&B2.

    So... i told him Kurns was in FoB at the north end of the pit, and that
    even if he was too low for B1&B2 he could easily get mobs he could take
    from the Shar Vahl side, coming in through Shadeweavers.

    He seemed to disbeleive me about PC, and wanted to know where FoB was.

    I was floored. I told him it was off the PoK via the Cabilis book, and
    that once he was in FoB, he would just head north, until he found the
    pit, and that the tower was at the north end of the pit.

    He asked for an escort to Kurns.

    I was floored. Told him he didn't need one, that he couldn't possibly
    miss it, and that there were a dozen people in FoB he could ask for
    directions if he managed to lose himself (I had just passed through FoB
    on the way to Kaesora to get an HS key)

    No more chatter... 20 minutes go by, a guild officer logs in, says
    hello, and gets invited to a group by some guildies... and then responds
    he'll be right there, but first he's got to show xxxxxx where Kurn's is.

    I was floored.

    Now this is supposedly a 45+ guild, which begs the question of why a
    clueless and helpless 13th level newbie was in it... so I asked the guy
    who his main was... turns out he has no less than 5 50+ characters. So I
    asked him point blank how the hell he didn't know what and where FoB was
    with so many 50+ chars.

    Claims he always leveled in CB and then PC B1&B2...

    I have feeling his 25th-55th levels were also played in maybe 3 zones.

    The guild isn't impressing me as a whole so far, but this twit takes the
    cake.

    I really don't want to be raiding with a guy who needs an escort to
    Kurns Tower. Looks like its already time to find another guild.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Chris Anderson wrote:

    > Lance Berg wrote:
    >
    >> If there's a class that can't solo to 70, I suppose it would be the
    >> rogue, the only class who's ability to deal decent damage relies on
    >> the mob facing in the other direction. And even there I have my
    >> doubts, as I'm not sufficiently conversant with the class to know if
    >> they can get ahold of a fear and snare kit of some kind.
    >
    >
    > I soloed a rogue to 51 personally. I have no doubt I could have
    > continued from that point, but EQ2 intervened. Intimidate works pretty
    > well and the new hp regen formula makes downtime less than medding
    > before KEI existed.
    Yeah, I was using intimidate at times on my berserker, but I didn't get
    nearly as big a boost out of it as a rogue would. Snare though.... no
    snare, no stun, has to be pretty annoying to fear kite a full speed mob?

    >
    > Any class can be soloed in EQ1.

    I have to agree, if a rogue can, any class can; certainly every class I
    played could, and the only ones I left out were rogue and paladin. I
    was pretty sure paladin would work decently, rogue was my only holdout
    for the "its just not worth doing" flag.

    Lance
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Lance Berg wrote:
    >
    > Chris Anderson wrote:
    >> I soloed a rogue to 51 personally. I have no doubt I could have
    >> continued from that point, but EQ2 intervened. Intimidate works
    >> pretty well and the new hp regen formula makes downtime less than
    >> medding before KEI existed.
    >
    > Yeah, I was using intimidate at times on my berserker, but I didn't get
    > nearly as big a boost out of it as a rogue would. Snare though.... no
    > snare, no stun, has to be pretty annoying to fear kite a full speed mob?

    There are snare poisons, as well as weapons that proc snare. I never
    really had a problem with it.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <ltqqd.5118$2a.274@fe40.usenetserver.com>, Kevin T. Matthews
    wrote:
    >> Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to 70,
    >> though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is you
    >> weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>
    >
    > A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.

    He didn't no classes couldn't solo to 70--he said "very few", so even if you
    were right about warriors, his point is still correct.

    --
    --Tim Smith
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > He didn't no classes couldn't solo to 70--he said "very few", so even if you
    > were right about warriors, his point is still correct.

    Actually, his point is wrong. EQ1 allowed any class to solo, especially
    after Luclin came out. You had to be smart about it, and certain
    classes had more flexibility in encounter types and less downtime, but
    it could be done rather easily.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "wade shepard" <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:Gioqd.42$NO5.17@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    >I quit playing eq1 after having played for 2 years:
    >
    > 1. Because with each expansion my computer became more and more obsolete
    > to
    > the point of being almost unplayable and I wasn't willing to fork out
    > another $1000 for a new one.
    >
    > 2. The game had become too predictable and repetitious. Eg. find a group,
    > camp, wait for mobs, kill mobs, distribute loot, repeat.
    >
    > 3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >
    > 4. Doing anything other than camping gave very few rewards.
    >
    > I'm thinking of giving eq2 a try

    Why? You want more of the same?
    You can solo in WoW.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:n5mdna4_78RmLTfcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    > > He didn't no classes couldn't solo to 70--he said "very few", so even if
    you
    > > were right about warriors, his point is still correct.
    >
    > Actually, his point is wrong. EQ1 allowed any class to solo, especially
    > after Luclin came out. You had to be smart about it, and certain
    > classes had more flexibility in encounter types and less downtime, but
    > it could be done rather easily.

    Soloing is not just winning one battle. Soloing is being able to take a
    string of blue fights without unacceptable downtime.

    Killing one light blue every 8 - 10 minutes does not qualify.

    At 65+, it was most definitely not possible to effectively solo a warrior or a
    rogue.

    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

    Dearic - Dwarven Warlord on E'ci
    Talynne - Half Elf Assassin on E'ci
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Davian wrote:
    > "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message

    > Soloing is not just winning one battle. Soloing is being able to take a
    > string of blue fights without unacceptable downtime.
    >
    > Killing one light blue every 8 - 10 minutes does not qualify.
    >
    > At 65+, it was most definitely not possible to effectively solo a warrior or a
    > rogue.

    I disagree. Again, "effective" is how you define it. I'm perfectly
    happy with a 6 minute spawn that I can do every time that it pops, for
    instance. There are more than a few encounters like that which a 65+
    rogue or warrior can win easily and gain low blue experience.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:0smdnciyQ_gNKzfcRVn-2g@comcast.com...

    >
    > I disagree. Again, "effective" is how you define it. I'm perfectly
    > happy with a 6 minute spawn that I can do every time that it pops, for
    > instance. There are more than a few encounters like that which a 65+
    > rogue or warrior can win easily and gain low blue experience.

    Feel free to go ahead and name a few.

    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

    Dearic - Dwarven Warlord on E'ci
    Talynne - Half Elf Assassin on E'ci
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Davian wrote:
    > "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:0smdnciyQ_gNKzfcRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    >
    >
    >>I disagree. Again, "effective" is how you define it. I'm perfectly
    >>happy with a 6 minute spawn that I can do every time that it pops, for
    >>instance. There are more than a few encounters like that which a 65+
    >>rogue or warrior can win easily and gain low blue experience.
    >
    >
    > Feel free to go ahead and name a few.

    Vampires in Tenebrous Mtn coterie castle. 50th level, easy for a
    reasonably geared rogue or warrior to solo.

    Skels in the Grey. 55th level, easy for a reasonably geared rogue or
    warrior to solo.

    Elder Animist Dumul in Shar Vahl. 60th level, hits for a max of 75 or
    so, easy for a melee to solo.

    Want more?
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Kevin T. Matthews wrote:

    > "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    > news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >><wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>
    >>Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    >>70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    >>you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>
    >
    >
    > A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.

    Not So. My Iksar Warrior reached 47 soloing and I can easily, albeit
    slowly, foresee reaching 51 at his current location, the 3 spawn
    Forest Giant camp in FV. With J-Boots, he can "SoW" pull singles and
    if trouble occurs, the SoNH zone line is within easy reach. After 51,
    there is a 2 spawn Sonic Wolf camp just across the bridge from the
    outpost in Grimling Forest and to the right that can take him to 54
    very safely. Be prepared for very slow going there however.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 2004-11-28, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
    > WoW is interesting in this respect: if you engage a mob, only you (or your
    > group) will get the XP for killing it, or loot, but others can still attack
    > it, or buff you. So, they can't kill steal you, but they can help.

    EQ2 lets you do this, *if they yell for help*. In other words, they have
    to *want* your aid, and by doing so they forfeit the XP and loot... they're
    stopping powerlevelling as well as griefing. I agree, its a loss of
    immersiveness, but if I can get used to the hacks that are lore and no
    drop, I guess this is just one more little thing, and its reasonably
    elegant - take the risk for the loot, or get the help to survive.

    >> Is eq2 even more geared toward grouping than eq1? I've heard that they've
    >> minimized being able to buff someone not in your group. I liked to be able
    >> give someone buffs in exchange for $ or to help a lower lvl get through
    >> the zone.
    >
    > The thing that really stands out about EQ2 at the lower levels is the HUGE
    > number of quests. At least up to the low teens, you'll typically have 20 to
    > 40 pending quests, most doable solo, and many involving interesting story.

    And more to come, it seems... there are whole levels of skill and spell
    trees that are meant to be unlocked by questing, but arent yet in the game
    as I understand it.

    I suppose you could debate whether they eever will be in the game, of course ;)

    Matt
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:55:53 -0500, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    wrote:

    >If there's a class that can't solo to 70, I suppose it would be the
    >rogue, the only class who's ability to deal decent damage relies on the
    >mob facing in the other direction. And even there I have my doubts, as
    >I'm not sufficiently conversant with the class to know if they can get
    >ahold of a fear and snare kit of some kind.
    My Rogue has a dagger that procs Engulfing Darkness (can't recall name
    offhand) and Intimidate works reasonably well... most times, heh. The
    dagger isn't really as good as a Snare, but with SoW potions or
    Journeyman's Boots the chasing is usually no problem. Not a good
    soloer, as you say, I have to agree.

    Palindrome
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:xMGdnXk2tM50TDfcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
    > Davian wrote:
    > > "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:0smdnciyQ_gNKzfcRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    > >
    > >
    > >>I disagree. Again, "effective" is how you define it. I'm perfectly
    > >>happy with a 6 minute spawn that I can do every time that it pops, for
    > >>instance. There are more than a few encounters like that which a 65+
    > >>rogue or warrior can win easily and gain low blue experience.
    > >
    > >
    > > Feel free to go ahead and name a few.
    >
    > Vampires in Tenebrous Mtn coterie castle. 50th level, easy for a
    > reasonably geared rogue or warrior to solo.
    >

    Green at 70.

    > Skels in the Grey. 55th level, easy for a reasonably geared rogue or
    > warrior to solo.
    >

    Light blue.

    > Elder Animist Dumul in Shar Vahl. 60th level, hits for a max of 75 or
    > so, easy for a melee to solo.
    >

    Does he have faction?

    > Want more?

    Sure, if you're saying they're out there.


    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

    Dearic - Dwarven Warlord on E'ci
    Talynne - Half Elf Assassin on E'ci
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Davian wrote:

    >>Want more?
    >
    >
    > Sure, if you're saying they're out there.

    They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:sN2dnWcccuZt2TbcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
    > Davian wrote:
    >
    > >>Want more?
    > >
    > >
    > > Sure, if you're saying they're out there.
    >
    > They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    > All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.

    Sorry, no. What you're actually doing is making unsupported self serving
    statements. I've been to every non-keyed zone in the game, as well as many of
    the keyed. I know what I am able to solo now, and what I was able to solo
    back when I was 65. It's up to you to support your own claim, not to tell
    me to do it for you.

    As for the skeletons you mentioned, as I remember it they are social, tightly
    packed, hit 250 and have Luclin level HP / AC. At 70 with my current raid
    gear I could probably solo them, but seeing as they are light blue, there is
    no point. At 65,. I very much doubt my rogue could beat one. She does not
    have the AC necessary to make those hits land for minimum damage, nor the
    regen to recover what is being taken. Certainly she would not win in any
    sort of shape to be killing more soon.


    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk

    Dearic - Dwarven Warlord on E'ci
    Talynne - Half Elf Assassin on E'ci
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Davian wrote:
    > "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:sN2dnWcccuZt2TbcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
    >
    >>Davian wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Want more?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Sure, if you're saying they're out there.
    >>
    >>They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    >>All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.
    >
    >
    > Sorry, no. What you're actually doing is making unsupported self serving
    > statements. I've been to every non-keyed zone in the game, as well as many of
    > the keyed. I know what I am able to solo now, and what I was able to solo
    > back when I was 65. It's up to you to support your own claim, not to tell
    > me to do it for you.
    >
    > As for the skeletons you mentioned, as I remember it they are social, tightly
    > packed, hit 250 and have Luclin level HP / AC. At 70 with my current raid
    > gear I could probably solo them, but seeing as they are light blue, there is
    > no point. At 65,. I very much doubt my rogue could beat one. She does not
    > have the AC necessary to make those hits land for minimum damage, nor the
    > regen to recover what is being taken. Certainly she would not win in any
    > sort of shape to be killing more soon.

    I watched a level 65 rogue soloing them a few weeks ago while waiting
    for an Ssra raid to form. They're social, but agro pulling works just fine.

    As for me finding you hunting spots, I've given you three. Go find your
    own hunting spots. The point is proven.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:uPGdnR8KdI4s0zbcRVn-2g@comcast.com...
    > Davian wrote:
    > > "Chris Anderson" <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:sN2dnWcccuZt2TbcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
    > >
    > >>Davian wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>>Want more?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Sure, if you're saying they're out there.
    > >>
    > >>They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    > >>All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.
    > >
    > >
    > > Sorry, no. What you're actually doing is making unsupported self serving
    > > statements. I've been to every non-keyed zone in the game, as well as
    many of
    > > the keyed. I know what I am able to solo now, and what I was able to
    solo
    > > back when I was 65. It's up to you to support your own claim, not to
    tell
    > > me to do it for you.
    > >

    > I watched a level 65 rogue soloing them a few weeks ago while waiting
    > for an Ssra raid to form. They're social, but agro pulling works just fine.
    >

    Thanks, but I'll trust my own experiences over a rogue you saw once.

    > As for me finding you hunting spots, I've given you three. Go find your
    > own hunting spots. The point is proven.

    You claiming it as proven does not make it so. Either post some support or
    go away.

    You've given me nothing, except one quest giver in a city zone that hits
    lighter than it should. If your claims with regards to spawn time are
    accurate. Being able to camp one blue mob in one zone does not equate to
    effective soloing.


    --
    Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
    Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
    Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:46:41 -0500, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote:

    >> Any class can be soloed in EQ1.
    >
    >I have to agree, if a rogue can, any class can; certainly every class I
    >played could, and the only ones I left out were rogue and paladin. I
    >was pretty sure paladin would work decently, rogue was my only holdout
    >for the "its just not worth doing" flag.

    I virtually soloed my PAL from 0-58. I'm not anti-social, I just play at 4-8 GMT, which
    is not conducive for a midwest server.

    As my PAL approaches 60, his ability to technically solo XP-giving MOBs is as strong as
    ever. His ability to root-heal or stun-heal, combined with the LoY fast-heals and HoTs,
    keeps him victorious against all but the toughest high-blue MOBs.

    HOWEVER - the downtime for heals and mana regen is a real downer. I now much prefer to be
    in a rockin' GE or Veksar group.

    Best regards,

    Tim ==

    (substitute 'tcsys.com' for 'nospam.co.uk')
    _________________

    Seeq Endestroi
    Paladin of Mithanial Marr, The Rathe
    http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=507035

    Visit the Surrender Dorothy web ! (http://dorothyrocks.com)
    Visit the Crunch Monkey web ! (http://crunchmonkey.com)
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Moopy" <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote in message

    > I dont like the inability to drop items, or the continuing reliance on
    > placeholder mobs for quests (Newbie shark quest requires killing lots
    > of trigger fish to make the sharks spawn - a game mechanic requirement
    > that should be 'masked' from the end player frankly. The first time I
    > tried it I swam around looking for sharks, and it took forever. The second
    > time I killed all the lil trigger fish and lo, hundreds of sharks. I was
    > hoping that by EQ2 they would say 'if player on quest y in area x then
    > spawn mob z at rate of q a minute' type affair).

    ?

    Odd, I never killed a single trigger fish, and I got my ass eaten by sharks.
    You really don't need extras around when you're being chewed on by 4 at
    once. Really. Especially when that verdammt named one decided to add his 3
    (rows of) teeth worth.

    The only things I did kill to get more sharks were the barracuda thingies
    (can't remember their names), and I didn't need to do that much. Between
    razortooths and sawtooths, I had more than sufficient sharks about 90% of
    the time.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Lance Berg" <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
    news:obmdnUheu5VYKjfcRVn-jg@dejazzd.com...
    >
    > Yeah, I was using intimidate at times on my berserker, but I didn't get
    > nearly as big a boost out of it as a rogue would. Snare though.... no
    > snare, no stun, has to be pretty annoying to fear kite a full speed mob?

    With my rogue, I solo caster mobs. They start to cast, you circle-strafe
    them and backstab. If your resists are good enough, you take very little
    damage killing a mob.

    James
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 2004-11-29, Ken Andrews <gobble@degook.com> wrote:
    > Odd, I never killed a single trigger fish, and I got my ass eaten by sharks.
    > You really don't need extras around when you're being chewed on by 4 at
    > once. Really. Especially when that verdammt named one decided to add his 3
    > (rows of) teeth worth.

    Bladefin is seriously mean, its true ;) I had to duo him ;)

    > The only things I did kill to get more sharks were the barracuda thingies
    > (can't remember their names), and I didn't need to do that much. Between
    > razortooths and sawtooths, I had more than sufficient sharks about 90% of
    > the time.

    Well, sawtooths didn't suffice for the quest I was doing, and needlefish worked
    as well as trigger fish for spawning new ones, but trigger fish died in a single
    hit ;)

    Matt
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:11:00 +0000 (UTC) in
    <slrncqm7v4.2dci.pingu@keg.zymurgy.org>, Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org>
    graced the world with this thought:

    >But... overall.... Im liking EQ2. Its very polished, and seems less
    >grief prone and dude ridden than EQ1...

    They're out there, it's just that Sony is holding your hand now so
    they can't bother you.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Kevin T. Matthews" <matthews@knology.net> wrote in news:ltqqd.5118
    $2a.274@fe40.usenetserver.com:

    >
    > "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    > news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >> <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>
    >> Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way to
    >> 70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback is
    >> you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>
    >
    > A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level 20-25.
    >

    Nope, still soloing my warrior at level 31. Certainly not as good as
    grouping, but, still soloing dark blues. And, no, he is not twinked to
    the gills, he has a 21% haste item, and equipment from the Kunark/Velious
    era for the most part.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

    On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
    Graeme, 15 Dwarven Shaman, 13 Scholar
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:Xns95B1600F4D232richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
    > "Kevin T. Matthews" <matthews@knology.net> wrote in news:ltqqd.5118
    > $2a.274@fe40.usenetserver.com:
    >
    >>
    >> "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >> news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >>> <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>>
    >>> Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way
    >>> to
    >>> 70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback
    >>> is
    >>> you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>>
    >>
    >> A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level
    >> 20-25.
    >>
    >
    > Nope, still soloing my warrior at level 31. Certainly not as good
    > as
    > grouping, but, still soloing dark blues. And, no, he is not twinked
    > to
    > the gills, he has a 21% haste item, and equipment from the
    > Kunark/Velious
    > era for the most part.
    >
    > --


    Try making a new warrior and give him nothing. Not one single twink
    item, let them earn their own way by the sweat of his/her brow so to
    speak.

    I had little trouble soloing my warrior twink into the 50's. He did
    have a fungie, 36% haste and the best droppable hp gear I could get
    with the plat my Necro had collecting dust in the bank. I quit EQ
    before I could get him further, making endless alts just was not fun
    any more.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Steve" <saw2814.remove@mchsi.com> wrote in news:WC3rd.421872$wV.87909
    @attbi_s54:

    >
    > "Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95B1600F4D232richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
    >> "Kevin T. Matthews" <matthews@knology.net> wrote in news:ltqqd.5118
    >> $2a.274@fe40.usenetserver.com:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:5o4kq0541o9l5elbkflskfbmhjt6veftv7@4ax.com...
    >>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:49:42 -0800, "wade shepard"
    >>>> <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>3. Soloing was almost impossible.
    >>>>
    >>>> Depends on your class. Very few classes couldn't solo all the way
    >>>> to 70, though some had a harder time of it than others. The drawback
    >>>> is you weren't going to get the uber drops if you never grouped.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> A warrior completely losses the ability to solo at about level
    >>> 20-25.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Nope, still soloing my warrior at level 31. Certainly not as good as
    >> grouping, but, still soloing dark blues. And, no, he is not twinked
    >> to the gills, he has a 21% haste item, and equipment from the
    >> Kunark/Velious
    >> era for the most part.
    >
    > Try making a new warrior and give him nothing. Not one single twink
    > item, let them earn their own way by the sweat of his/her brow so to
    > speak.
    >
    > I had little trouble soloing my warrior twink into the 50's. He did
    > have a fungie, 36% haste and the best droppable hp gear I could get
    > with the plat my Necro had collecting dust in the bank. I quit EQ
    > before I could get him further, making endless alts just was not fun
    > any more.
    >

    He'd probably be better equipped than my current warrior, as the stuff he
    can buy in the bazaar with what he earns is significantly superior to
    what I bought him when I did. In fact, I soloed him up to level 29 with
    no haste item at all, dressed in a mix of banded/bronze/crafted armor.
    It's trivial to solo a warrior if you find the right places, at least up
    to the low 30s which is what I have experience with so far.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

    On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
    Graeme, 16 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 30 Nov 2004 19:25:03 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

    >He'd probably be better equipped than my current warrior, as the stuff he
    >can buy in the bazaar with what he earns is significantly superior to
    >what I bought him when I did. In fact, I soloed him up to level 29 with
    >no haste item at all, dressed in a mix of banded/bronze/crafted armor.
    >It's trivial to solo a warrior if you find the right places, at least up
    >to the low 30s which is what I have experience with so far.

    It's pretty trivial to solo a warrior through the mid 50s these days.
    Up through 50th lvl, it was probably more efficient to solo than group
    with him. After 50 it would probably have been slower but I know CoM
    would have gotten me through the high 50s at a decent rate. You can
    mow through low lvl blues there as a melee.

    Rgds, Frank
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:35:58 +0000 (UTC) in
    <slrncqu31e.c8g.pingu@keg.zymurgy.org>, Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org>
    graced the world with this thought:

    >2, personal - I'd prefer to have a new real healer we've made
    > friends with, and a PL/twink 'free' world.

    who wouldn't, but life doesn't always work that way. As a matter of
    fact, life <usually> doesn't work that way. Almost ever.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "wade shepard" <wshepard@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:Gioqd.42$NO5.17@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    >I quit playing eq1 after having played for 2 years:
    >
    > 1. Because with each expansion my computer became more and more obsolete
    > to
    > the point of being almost unplayable and I wasn't willing to fork out
    > another $1000 for a new one.

    Keep in mind that EQ2 will not run with all bells & whistles turned on for
    those with even bleeding edge PCs right now.

    With a P4 2.4 with 768MB PC2100 RAM and a Radeon 9700 128MB video card (in
    other words, not a bad system but obviously not the best) with in-game
    Performance set at "Balanced" (neither great quality nor great performance)
    I still lag in any non-instanced zone (towns). In the big zones (S & N
    Qeynos for instance) the lag can be quite bad. Think POK on your computer
    now.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Dan Harmon <deharmon@bigfoot.com> wrote:
    > Keep in mind that EQ2 will not run with all bells & whistles turned on for
    > those with even bleeding edge PCs right now.

    FWIW, one of many reasons I left EQ1 is because the game didn't
    support older hardware very well (I'm very sensitive/annoyed by low
    FPS, and playing at 640x480 is just plain ugly). It sounds like EQ2
    is trotting down the same path: Hardware requirements that'll keep you
    opening your wallet if you want good performance and a decent picture.

    WoW seems more flexible in this regard; that is, it looks fantastic on
    a wider range of hardware. I'm wondering if SOE made a conscious
    decision to alienate people with older hardware, or if their graphics
    engine just isn't very efficient.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    > WoW seems more flexible in this regard; that is, it looks fantastic on
    > a wider range of hardware. I'm wondering if SOE made a conscious
    > decision to alienate people with older hardware, or if their graphics
    > engine just isn't very efficient.

    I'm pretty sure they made a conscious decision to alienate anyone with PCs
    not up to spec. After all, CPU speed has stalled, memory advancements have
    stalled...even video technology has slowed down. Sony is requiring a gaming
    PC to play its game. That blows for anyone who can't afford the upgrade
    though.

    It could be that EQ2's engine is quite efficient but does a hell of a lot
    more than WOWs. I really have no idea. WOW graphics aren't nearly as
    detailed, I don't think.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Actually my reason is simple: it became unfun to play anymore.
    On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:49:15 -0800, Chris Anderson <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote:

    >Davian wrote:
    >
    >>>Want more?
    >>
    >>
    >> Sure, if you're saying they're out there.
    >
    >They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    >All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.

    Jay Bebetze
    the_goblin@mindspring.com
    gbb301@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
    Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/6914
    "Nam risu inepto res ineptior nulla est." Catullus, Roman Poet
    There is nothing dumber than to grin at the wrong time.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 2004-12-06, Dan Harmon <deharmon@bigfoot.com> wrote:
    >> WoW seems more flexible in this regard; that is, it looks fantastic on
    >> a wider range of hardware. I'm wondering if SOE made a conscious
    >> decision to alienate people with older hardware, or if their graphics
    >> engine just isn't very efficient.
    >
    > I'm pretty sure they made a conscious decision to alienate anyone with PCs
    > not up to spec. After all, CPU speed has stalled, memory advancements have
    > stalled...even video technology has slowed down. Sony is requiring a gaming
    > PC to play its game. That blows for anyone who can't afford the upgrade
    > though.
    >
    > It could be that EQ2's engine is quite efficient but does a hell of a lot
    > more than WOWs. I really have no idea. WOW graphics aren't nearly as
    > detailed, I don't think.
    >
    >

    Yeah. I'm on an AMD 3000 and 6800 GT 256mb - I have pretty much everything
    turned on except environment shadows with character textures at maximum. there
    is occasional stuttering but its very playable and it looks *far far far* better
    than EQ.

    The alienating comment though, Im not convinced about. Its true you need an
    insane PC to run 'bells and whistles' but I know people with very old PC's
    who've turned off a lot of details and are playing fine; if you feel alienated
    by knowing you're not running the game at 'best level', then running a game
    that doesnt look as good, but *cant* look as good is merely putting blinkers
    on... saying 'My PC runs WOW at full settings!' is irrelevant if your PC could
    run EQ2 at an equivilant level of detail.

    I've not played WOW, so I cant do direct comparison, but the screenies I've
    seen make it look like a far better executed EQ1 in terms of art; the same
    levels of detail but much nicer artistic integrity and 'flow'.

    Matt
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Moopy <pingu@keg.zymurgy.org> wrote:
    > turned on except environment shadows with character textures at maximum. there
    > is occasional stuttering but its very playable and it looks *far far far* better
    > than EQ.
    >
    > The alienating comment though, Im not convinced about. Its true you need an
    > insane PC to run 'bells and whistles' but I know people with very old PC's
    > who've turned off a lot of details and are playing fine; if you feel alienated
    > by knowing you're not running the game at 'best level', then running a game
    > that doesnt look as good, but *cant* look as good is merely putting blinkers
    > on... saying 'My PC runs WOW at full settings!' is irrelevant if your PC could
    > run EQ2 at an equivilant level of detail.
    >
    > I've not played WOW, so I cant do direct comparison, but the screenies I've
    > seen make it look like a far better executed EQ1 in terms of art; the same
    > levels of detail but much nicer artistic integrity and 'flow'.
    >

    From what I could see in my research [whether to buy EQ2 or WoW] was
    that WoW is about one half way between EQ1 and EQ2 as far as graphics
    quality goes.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Chris Anderson <chris.a.anderson@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:sN2dnWcccuZt2TbcRVn-iA@comcast.com:

    > Davian wrote:
    >
    >>>Want more?
    >>
    >>
    >> Sure, if you're saying they're out there.
    >
    > They're out there. I gave you a 3 spots that can get you from 60-70.
    > All easy kills. All you have to do is get out there and look a bit.

    I find soloing tedious as a shaman, and I solo white, yellow, and red mobs
    at 65+ (at 69 they are now high blue to white), I can't even imagine how
    tedious it would be to solo low blue to light blue mobs for xp.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

    On Steamfont in <Bane of Evil>
    Graeme, 17 Dwarven Shaman, 14 Scholar
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games