EQ2 grp should simply be a higher aim then when solo

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

This is my fourth MMO

I like solo and grp but surely the idea of a group is to make tougher
challenges simpler or even possible then doing it solo.

This is where EQ2 goes wrong it is dsigned from a grp raid perspective and
soloers are generally given the scraps. Bare in mind many do not want to
solo but CANNOT find grp.

A grp of lvl 20s be able to take on lvl 25 mob and quest and it should be as
simple as that.

I am tempted to go back to AC1

ATB
Grimchrim

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

"scritchy" <scritchy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108305668.401682.97700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Chris wrote:
>> This is my fourth MMO
>>
>> I like solo and grp but surely the idea of a group is to make tougher
>
>> challenges simpler or even possible then doing it solo.
>>
>> This is where EQ2 goes wrong it is dsigned from a grp raid
> perspective and
>> soloers are generally given the scraps. Bare in mind many do not want
> to
>> solo but CANNOT find grp.
>>
>> A grp of lvl 20s be able to take on lvl 25 mob and quest and it
> should be as
>> simple as that.
>>
>> I am tempted to go back to AC1
>
> So why should a group of 20s be able to take on something five levels
> higher than them?

I was making an example of how to simplify the group/solo content problem.
The more in your party the higher mobs can be fought and the tougher quest
can be started sooner.

Most previous mmog I played it was not a case of no group no game but we now
have a grp what higher challenges shall we attempt.

Does that mean that a full group of 40s should be
> able to take on a group 50 mob (keeping the same percentages you use).
> If you mean absolute levels, does that mean a full group of 5s should
> be able to take on a group 10 mob?

Why not? Though as I said it was only an example of the fact that a grp can
now up a bit in the challenge stakes.


ATB
Grimchrim