Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Caster's Realm article: On Soloing

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 29, 2005 11:45:44 AM

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

Caster's Realm: On Soloing

Soloing has been a continuing topic of interest since the days
Everquest first began. Newer games like World of Warcraft and Everquest
2 continually advertise new features and content for soloing. Clearly
many players desire rewarding solo content, but what dangers lurk in
such desires? What will happen to the rest of the game if soloing
becomes the fastest and most reliable way of earning experience? Put
your wizard on AFK and sit back for an interesting read.

Soloing offers many obvious and clear advantages. Soloers can often
begin hunting right away. They do not need to wait for other group
members; they do not need to surf the LFG channel looking for that one
last tank; they do not have to show each member how to arrive at a
hunting ground. Soloers can leave the keyboard when they wish without
harming the rest of a group. Soloers earn reliable experience over time
because they only have to trust themselves. They don't have to worry
about getting that one bad bard who always overpulls and wipes out
groups.

The clearest advantage to soloing is time. Soloers can get hunting,
earn experience, and get out quickly - sometimes in as little as ten
or fifteen minutes. Some players need this or they couldn't play. Not
everyone has a lifestyle that lets them play a game non-stop for hours
at a time. There is no pause button in Everquest. For some, soloing is
the only option.

Soloing has some disadvantages as well. Everquest is built around
grouping. The other players are the only clear difference between a
game like Everquest and a game like Morrowind. If one solos all of the
time, one will have a harder time meeting new friends, forming a
network of allies, joining guilds, or get invited to hunts or raids.
One who spends his or her entire Everquest career soloing misses out on
what makes Everquest such a great game.

In Everquest, not all classes solo equally. Some classes such as
wizards, druids, necromancers, and bards; have significant advantages
in soloing. Other classes such as warriors, rogues, monks and most
classes without an ability to heal or kite, have significant
disadvantages in soloing.

Some argue, including SOE, that this is acceptable. On the EQLive
website it clearly states which classes are better able to solo and
which are highly sought after in groups. Some argue that not every
class is as desired for a group and thus should have equal advantage in
soloing.

I argue a different case. Every class should have equal advantage
earning solo experience. Groups should desire every class equally,
though not always for every slot in a group. Every class should have
opportunities to earn similar experience to other classes alone if
grouping is currently impossible.

I won't dig back into group desireability for every class. It is easy
to argue that warriors, clerics, and enchanters are desired more highly
than other classes in a group and this is partly true, but each group
wants only one of those classes and wants three or four of the other
classes. Just as every class should have reasonable chances for earning
similar experience as other classes alone, they should have equal
chances for getting into a group.

The way to fix soloing is to make grouping more desireable and easier
to do.

Should every class quad kite in Fire? No. Not every class has to earn
experience in exactly the same way but every class should have an
opportunity to earn the same general amount of experience in the same
amount of time; whether it is through the use of a instanced solo
dungeon exploration, a task, a quest, or normal hunting.

What should that reward be? This is a more difficult question, one with
no clear answer but one thing is clear:

Players should earn significantly more experience grouping than they
should soloing.

It often takes a lot time to form a group, get to a hunting zone and
begin hunting. One must consider this downtime when determining the
experience reward a group should earn while hunting. Other factors such
as players getting lost, players dying, players going afk, players
leaving and new players joining need to be factored in as well. When we
consider all of these factors it is clear that grouping experience
shouldn't just be better than solo experience; it should be MUCH
better.

What happens if it isn't? Eventually, people will stop grouping. If you
think its hard to find a group these days, imagine how hard it would be
if everyone earned more reliable experience soloing? Why would anyone
group?

People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.

What about players playing more than one account at a time? They seem
to gain the clearest advantages of both soloing and grouping. Can or
should anything be done about them? No. They count as a group just as
everyone else does. They pay for those extra accounts. If designed
properly, no one person should be able to efficiently play a game like
Everquest with more than one character nearly as well as a full group
of live players. The efficiency of having a live player behind each
keyboard should result in faster and more reliable hunts in more
dangerous and rewarding areas.

What should SOE do in regards to soloing?

Improve the task system with tasks anyone can accomplish with any class
and any level in an hour.

Add more progressive solo tasks and quests that follow through a story
line and offer good one-time experience and item rewards.

Ensure that grouping offers a significant advantage over soloing.
Players should always desire a group over a soloing activity. Only in
limited play-time or high AFK time situations should a player desire to
solo.

Decide how much experience each player should earn soloing when
compared to grouping and offer that experience reward equally to all
classes. It doesn't have to be perfect but it should be close.

Add improvements for the classes that have a harder time soloing such
as tasks, quests, particular items or skills that help that class solo.

Add tasks that don't require killing lots of mobs. Examples include
exploration tasks, puzzle tasks, mini-game tasks, or spawned encounters
designed for the class that spawns it.

SOE should improve grouping content instead of merely improving solo
content. Many times players use the difficulty in finding a group as a
reason for improving solo content. Instead of bypassing the grouping
process completely, there are clear ways to improve grouping and speed
up the time it takes to form a group and get hunting. Such improvements
might include:

Let players invite other players into their group across zones. Let
/invite player work regardless of where that player is.

Add player characters to the 'find' button. Help players track their
groupmates more easily. Refund the points for the 'Find Group Member'
group leader ability.

Add less demanding yet profitable hunts for non-ideal groups or groups
with a mix of wide level ranges.

Add a mentor system similar to Everquest 2. Let players of mixed levels
hunt together and earn experience.

Add tasks, quests, and missions designed for three or four players
instead of six. Help bridge the gap between soloing and the perfect
six-person group.

Players and game companies alike have embraced soloing nearly
completely. Both Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft offer nearly enough
solo content for a player to go from level one to the highest level
without ever having to group. Continually improving solo content became
the trend. Improve it too much, however, and you may destroy the very
thing that made Everquest such a unique and monumental game: the
dependency on other players.

Loral Ciriclight
12 April 2005
loral@loralciriclight.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 31, 2005 5:00:43 AM

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

Mike this is Cladari - we have grouped and know each other in game - Id like
to comment a bit on this post. For others Im a lvl 70 human druid. Im some
of Mikes post.

"Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117377944.327822.178400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Caster's Realm: On Soloing
>
> Soloing has been a continuing topic of interest since the days
> Everquest first began. Newer games like World of Warcraft and Everquest
> 2 continually advertise new features and content for soloing. Clearly
> many players desire rewarding solo content, but what dangers lurk in
> such desires? What will happen to the rest of the game if soloing
> becomes the fastest and most reliable way of earning experience? Put
> your wizard on AFK and sit back for an interesting read.
>
> Soloing offers many obvious and clear advantages. Soloers can often
> begin hunting right away. They do not need to wait for other group
> members; they do not need to surf the LFG channel looking for that one
> last tank; they do not have to show each member how to arrive at a
> hunting ground. Soloers can leave the keyboard when they wish without
> harming the rest of a group. Soloers earn reliable experience over time
> because they only have to trust themselves. They don't have to worry
> about getting that one bad bard who always overpulls and wipes out
> groups.

Above is all true

> The clearest advantage to soloing is time. Soloers can get hunting,
> earn experience, and get out quickly - sometimes in as little as ten
> or fifteen minutes. Some players need this or they couldn't play. Not
> everyone has a lifestyle that lets them play a game non-stop for hours
> at a time. There is no pause button in Everquest. For some, soloing is
> the only option.

Also true

> Soloing has some disadvantages as well. Everquest is built around
> grouping. The other players are the only clear difference between a
> game like Everquest and a game like Morrowind. If one solos all of the
> time, one will have a harder time meeting new friends, forming a
> network of allies, joining guilds, or get invited to hunts or raids.
> One who spends his or her entire Everquest career soloing misses out on
> what makes Everquest such a great game.

Now this is a straw man arguement - you are assuming that you either solo or
group exclusively, but thats not the case. Most of the people I know who
solo do so to kill time while finding a grp, at higher levels the solo exp
is just slow. You do it but you would rather not - you are just killing
time.

> In Everquest, not all classes solo equally. Some classes such as
> wizards, druids, necromancers, and bards; have significant advantages
> in soloing. Other classes such as warriors, rogues, monks and most
> classes without an ability to heal or kite, have significant
> disadvantages in soloing.

No arguement there

> snip a paragraph

> I argue a different case. Every class should have equal advantage
> earning solo experience. Groups should desire every class equally,
> though not always for every slot in a group. Every class should have
> opportunities to earn similar experience to other classes alone if
> grouping is currently impossible.

Here is where we go in different directions Loral. Below you argue that
there should be a different way for non solo classes to get exp and I agree
with that - but I completely disagree with the above statement that groups
should desire every class equally. I just finished a DoN mission as the only
healer, I had to make sure they knew I had no heal over time, they would
have to watch agro and we would have to go a bit slower to avoid long sit
time. That to me is group learning to live with the skills they have with
them, they have to adjust to the people there. That is group community -
not - every class should be able to the job equally. That is exactly what
made me leave EQ2.

> I won't dig back into group desireability for every class. It is easy
> to argue that warriors, clerics, and enchanters are desired more highly
> than other classes in a group and this is partly true, but each group
> wants only one of those classes and wants three or four of the other
> classes. Just as every class should have reasonable chances for earning
> similar experience as other classes alone, they should have equal
> chances for getting into a group.
>
> The way to fix soloing is to make grouping more desireable and easier
> to do.
>
-- snip

> Players should earn significantly more experience grouping than they
> should soloing.

They do now - there is no way at higher levels for a solo hunter to get exp
faster than in a group. I can solo Fire tables but will take a group there
anytime because the exp is so much better in a group.The mobs go down faster
and overall there is no comparison. Your arguement fails here.

> It often takes a lot time to form a group, get to a hunting zone and
> begin hunting. One must consider this downtime when determining the
> experience reward a group should earn while hunting. Other factors such
> as players getting lost, players dying, players going afk, players
> leaving and new players joining need to be factored in as well. When we
> consider all of these factors it is clear that grouping experience
> shouldn't just be better than solo experience; it should be MUCH
> better.

It is now - I see no reason to change anything so far.

> What happens if it isn't? Eventually, people will stop grouping. If you
> think its hard to find a group these days, imagine how hard it would be
> if everyone earned more reliable experience soloing? Why would anyone
> group?
>
> People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
> offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
> be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
> well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.

You have set up the straw man and are now taking it down - I disagree with
the premise that solo is much better exp than grouping.

--- snip

> What should SOE do in regards to soloing?
>
> Improve the task system with tasks anyone can accomplish with any class
> and any level in an hour.
>
> Add more progressive solo tasks and quests that follow through a story
> line and offer good one-time experience and item rewards.

agree

> Ensure that grouping offers a significant advantage over soloing.
> Players should always desire a group over a soloing activity. Only in
> limited play-time or high AFK time situations should a player desire to
> solo.

This is the current situation Loral - there is no way to beat group exp at
levels above maybe 60. I would taylor my arguement to SOE to levels below
that, because above that there is no way to beat group exp as the game is
currently configured.

> Decide how much experience each player should earn soloing when
> compared to grouping and offer that experience reward equally to all
> classes. It doesn't have to be perfect but it should be close.
>
> Add improvements for the classes that have a harder time soloing such
> as tasks, quests, particular items or skills that help that class solo.
>
> Add tasks that don't require killing lots of mobs. Examples include
> exploration tasks, puzzle tasks, mini-game tasks, or spawned encounters
> designed for the class that spawns it.

kk

> SOE should improve grouping content instead of merely improving solo
> content. Many times players use the difficulty in finding a group as a
> reason for improving solo content. Instead of bypassing the grouping
> process completely, there are clear ways to improve grouping and speed
> up the time it takes to form a group and get hunting. Such improvements
> might include:
>
> Let players invite other players into their group across zones. Let
> /invite player work regardless of where that player is.

This is just wrong - it doesnt work in EQ2 and wont work here, in EQ2 you
put up an lfg and get lots of invites, sure, but they are spam. No - we are
hunting here, doing this etc - just anon invites.
Its like drive by group invites in EQLive, when was the last time you
accepted one of those Loral?

> Add player characters to the 'find' button. Help players track their
> groupmates more easily. Refund the points for the 'Find Group Member'
> group leader ability.

Please - if they cant find the group maybe the zone they are fighting in is
beyond them. I have had invites to groups in new zones and explained first -
Im new to the zone and may need help - and have either been told they had no
time or been escorted to group. Much more often been escorted and those are
the people you remember and who remember you. That is community building -
not fuzzy yellow trails.

> Add less demanding yet profitable hunts for non-ideal groups or groups
> with a mix of wide level ranges.
>
> Add a mentor system similar to Everquest 2. Let players of mixed levels
> hunt together and earn experience.
>
> Add tasks, quests, and missions designed for three or four players
> instead of six. Help bridge the gap between soloing and the perfect
> six-person group.

No problem with above, except I think you are hung up on the "perfect"
group.

> Players and game companies alike have embraced soloing nearly
> completely. Both Everquest 2 and World of Warcraft offer nearly enough
> solo content for a player to go from level one to the highest level
> without ever having to group. Continually improving solo content became
> the trend. Improve it too much, however, and you may destroy the very
> thing that made Everquest such a unique and monumental game: the
> dependency on other players.

Please take this as intended Loral - a critique of your opinions on the game
and nothing personal. I look foward to more DoN missions together.

Hug your Druid tonight

Cladari
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 31, 2005 7:11:42 PM

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

"tankdoc" <tankdoc@adelphia.net> wrote in
news:mNydncY3KfjgcgbfRVn-tg@adelphia.com:

>> I argue a different case. Every class should have equal advantage
>> earning solo experience. Groups should desire every class equally,
>> though not always for every slot in a group. Every class should have
>> opportunities to earn similar experience to other classes alone if
>> grouping is currently impossible.
>
> Here is where we go in different directions Loral. Below you argue
> that there should be a different way for non solo classes to get exp
> and I agree with that - but I completely disagree with the above
> statement that groups should desire every class equally. I just
> finished a DoN mission as the only healer, I had to make sure they
> knew I had no heal over time, they would have to watch agro and we
> would have to go a bit slower to avoid long sit time. That to me is
> group learning to live with the skills they have with them, they have
> to adjust to the people there. That is group community - not - every
> class should be able to the job equally. That is exactly what made me
> leave EQ2.
>

Same here. I think it's a generic approach that sacrifices the majority of
what draws people to the various classes for ease of balancing and
development.

I'm an adult. I don't need everything to be balanced to the last point of
dmg done or hp healed in order to have a great time. I'll take more
interesting over more fair any day, within reason of course.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Related resources
June 1, 2005 5:45:20 PM

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

"tankdoc" wrote

> "Mike Shea" wrote.
>
>> I argue a different case. Every class should have equal advantage
>> earning solo experience. Groups should desire every class equally,
>> though not always for every slot in a group.
>
> ... I completely disagree with the above statement that groups should
> desire every class equally. I just finished a DoN mission as the only
> healer, I had to make sure they knew I had no heal over time, they would
> have to watch agro and we would have to go a bit slower to avoid long sit
> time. That to me is group learning to live with the skills they have with
> them, they have to adjust to the people there. That is group community -
> not - every class should be able to the job equally. That is exactly what
> made me leave EQ2.

Simple question: Would you be just as happy if the group had
said "oh - sorry, we'll just wait for a cleric then"?

Since you finished the mission, you DID do EXACTLY what a
cleric (or shaman, most likely) would be able to do. So why
did you leave EQ2 again?

About the only difference between EQ2's group roles for
main classes (priest) is they didn't make the same mistake
they made in EQ with CHeal and Slow. There's simply no
stupidly over-powered spell like those which unbalance the
game to the point a priest class can't handle any group.

Every priest can heal, it just takes *exactly* what you said
was needed in that DoN mission -- a group adjusting to
the type of healer they have. A fury can NOT heal as
well as a warden - or a cleric subclass. The group (and,
obviously, the priest themselves) simply need to make up
for it by adjusting their play style. The *only* difference
is I don't need to tell a group "we will need to go slower"
because we don't -- the group doesn't have any limitations
because their healer is class X instead of class Y (assuming
they'll adjust their play style, of course.)
June 1, 2005 5:54:52 PM

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

"Rumbledor" wrote

> I'm an adult. I don't need everything to be balanced to the last point of
> dmg done or hp healed in order to have a great time. I'll take more
> interesting over more fair any day, within reason of course.

The "within reason" clause there is the killer. I've seen
level 40 clerics sitting in Velks (pre-Luclin) at upper spiders
simply because CHeal was so overpowering. I sure didn't
see level 40 shaman or druids there as the *only* healer in
the group.

Then again, I'm not aware of a game where everything is
balanced to the last point of hp healed or damage done.
It's certainly not in EQ2; not even close, except at the
lower levels where all the primary classes are using what
amounts to the same spells. The branching doesn't really
begin to become pronounced until late 20's.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 1, 2005 7:35:59 PM

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

"Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1117377944.327822.178400
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
> offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
> be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
> well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.

Min/maxers seek the most reliable xp over time. Others, seek the maximum
fun over time, quite a bit different. I have gone many play sessions
earning little to no xp, yet having quite a bit of fun.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 1, 2005 7:36:00 PM

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

"Graeme Faelban" wrote:
> "Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1117377944.327822.178400
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>> People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
>> offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
>> be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
>> well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.
>
> Min/maxers seek the most reliable xp over time. Others, seek the maximum
> fun over time, quite a bit different.

Bingo.

Funny thing is, there are times when I'm both.

Probably 75% of the time I just want to unwind ... sometimes even just
yakking in /gu or the PoK will accomplish that. But there are times when
I'm just in the mood to make progress on one of my characters ... more of a
Min/Max mindset.

Crash
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 1, 2005 8:06:55 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in
news:M6jne.88632$w15.55313@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Rumbledor" wrote
>
>> I'm an adult. I don't need everything to be balanced to the last
>> point of dmg done or hp healed in order to have a great time. I'll
>> take more interesting over more fair any day, within reason of
>> course.
>
> The "within reason" clause there is the killer. I've seen
> level 40 clerics sitting in Velks (pre-Luclin) at upper spiders
> simply because CHeal was so overpowering. I sure didn't
> see level 40 shaman or druids there as the *only* healer in
> the group.
>
> Then again, I'm not aware of a game where everything is
> balanced to the last point of hp healed or damage done.
> It's certainly not in EQ2; not even close, except at the
> lower levels where all the primary classes are using what
> amounts to the same spells. The branching doesn't really
> begin to become pronounced until late 20's.
>

However, in EQ2 that is precisely their goal, priest classes all being
just as effective at healing, tanks all just as effective at tanking,
etc. They're under the mistaken impression that merely offering
different ways of doing the exact same thing is all that is needed to
achieve an effective and desirable class balance.

The way I see it, possibilities for class variance (identity) fall
between two extremes.

One extreme involves many diverse classes, each having specific,
identifying skills and abilities. Naturally, there would be some
overlap, but it would be true to the nature of the class. The cleric,
for example, would be the healer par excellence with the ability to call
upon the favor of their gods to imbue/protect those around them. Healing
and protecting would be their game. Shaman, on the other hand, would be
designed around communing with the spirit world and the use of various
spells/potions to cause detrimental effects on the enemy as well as
boost the effectiveness of allies. Whereas it only makes sense for a
shaman, true to the medicine man image, to be able to heal, they should
not be able to work the miracles of healing that the cleric can perform.

The other extreme involves only a few classes that cover the basic roles
of gameplay, tanking, healing, DPS, crowd control and possibly
buffing/debuffing. For example, warriors might be the only tank class,
clerics the only healers, wizards the only high-damage class, enchanters
the only CC class and shaman the only buffer/debuffer class. Any utility
skills and abilities would be divided among them.

I see the first extreme as the holy grail of MMORPG's. The first company
to successfully pull it off will be the next EQ though some may argue
that WoW is already worthy of that title by sheer subscription numbers.
EQ, nonetheless, has come the closest to that extreme of any. I agree,
however, that CH and their complete mishandling of slow have proved to
be their nemesis.

EQ2 leans much more toward the second extreme, but fails to pull it off.
Players sacrifice the texture and identity of what their classes could
be, yet still don't enjoy the balance that design philosophy should
provide. SoE has tried to make each of the sub-classes within an
archetype interesting and viable on its own. Unfortunately, it felt to
me like little more than window dressing. Clerics aren't primarily
clerics any more then shaman are primarily shaman. They are both priests
first and foremost, seeming more dilluted than different.

Though the numbers and stats are evident everywhere you look in a
MMORPG, I feel they should rank second in priority behind making the
class interesting where class design is concerned.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 6:00:27 AM

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

On 1 Jun 2005 15:35:59 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>"Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1117377944.327822.178400
>@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>> People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
>> offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
>> be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
>> well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.
>
>Min/maxers seek the most reliable xp over time. Others, seek the maximum
>fun over time, quite a bit different. I have gone many play sessions
>earning little to no xp, yet having quite a bit of fun.

Very true. I have also. But I do suspect that perhaps most players
like to make a bit of progress be that XP or questing or crafting in a
play session. I don't suspect many folks log in prepared to gain
little or nothing from the session apart from the die hard role
players, high levels, guild officers etc. But I do whole heartedly
agree that fun comes far before grinding out XP for me as well.

BB.
June 2, 2005 11:00:02 AM

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

"Rumbledor" wrote

> However, in EQ2 that is precisely their goal, priest classes all being
> just as effective at healing, tanks all just as effective at tanking,
> etc. They're under the mistaken impression that merely offering
> different ways of doing the exact same thing is all that is needed to
> achieve an effective and desirable class balance.

Okay - except, as I keep pointing out, your whole impression
that they offer "different ways of doing the exact same thing" is
wrong. That's NOT the way it works.

Yes, there IS a different "flavor" for the heals of the three
healer classes (cleric, shaman, druid) but they did NOT
balance the classes by simply using the same heals and just
making them different "flavors." That's certainly not as
*obvious* at lower levels, but that's not unique to EQ2.

At any rate, *in EQ2*, the classes and subclasses all bring
different things to the table. The only real difference is that
shaman didn't get overpowering slows and clerics didn't get
overpowering CHeal. But a cleric still heals better than
the other priest classes, a druid still needs to keep in mind
they've got offensive firepower to make up for a lack of
raw healing ability, etc.

I can understand your point-of-view if you've only played
EQ2 up to around level 20-25. The differences just aren't
as pronounced yet. But one could make the same argument
in EQ for priests at that level as well. Clerics don't come
into their own until level 39 in EQ IIRC, for instance.
June 2, 2005 11:48:17 AM

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

In article <jSpne.38$K66.21@fe02.lga>, crash86@shotmail.com says...
> "Graeme Faelban" wrote:
> > "Mike Shea" <mshea01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1117377944.327822.178400
> > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> People seek the most reliable experience over time. Since soloing
> >> offers a much more reliable experience, the reward for grouping should
> >> be significantly increased to make up for its lack in reliability as
> >> well as the extra time it takes to form a group and get hunting.
> >
> > Min/maxers seek the most reliable xp over time. Others, seek the maximum
> > fun over time, quite a bit different.
>
> Bingo.
>
> Funny thing is, there are times when I'm both.

> Probably 75% of the time I just want to unwind ... sometimes even just
> yakking in /gu or the PoK will accomplish that. But there are times when
> I'm just in the mood to make progress on one of my characters ... more of a
> Min/Max mindset.


I think there are times where everyone switches over to min/maxing. When
you want to ding your level before night fall... or some such. Perfectly
normal I'd say even for the most laid back players.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 6:14:24 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:S7yne.89673$w15.60892
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Rumbledor" wrote
>
>> However, in EQ2 that is precisely their goal, priest classes all being
>> just as effective at healing, tanks all just as effective at tanking,
>> etc. They're under the mistaken impression that merely offering
>> different ways of doing the exact same thing is all that is needed to
>> achieve an effective and desirable class balance.
>
> Okay - except, as I keep pointing out, your whole impression
> that they offer "different ways of doing the exact same thing" is
> wrong. That's NOT the way it works.
>
> Yes, there IS a different "flavor" for the heals of the three
> healer classes (cleric, shaman, druid) but they did NOT
> balance the classes by simply using the same heals and just
> making them different "flavors." That's certainly not as
> *obvious* at lower levels, but that's not unique to EQ2.
>
> At any rate, *in EQ2*, the classes and subclasses all bring
> different things to the table. The only real difference is that
> shaman didn't get overpowering slows and clerics didn't get
> overpowering CHeal. But a cleric still heals better than
> the other priest classes, a druid still needs to keep in mind
> they've got offensive firepower to make up for a lack of
> raw healing ability, etc.
>
> I can understand your point-of-view if you've only played
> EQ2 up to around level 20-25. The differences just aren't
> as pronounced yet. But one could make the same argument
> in EQ for priests at that level as well. Clerics don't come
> into their own until level 39 in EQ IIRC, for instance.

Fair enough, however, as I said, in EQ2, their primary goal is to make all
priests, for example, heal equally effectively. In that scenario, there
really isn't much need to play one priest sub-class over another, beyond
your own particular tastes. What else does each offer that is really all
that useful/desired that the other priest classes don't?

I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but duplicating
the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 6:31:06 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:S7yne.89673$w15.60892
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> Clerics don't come
> into their own until level 39 in EQ IIRC, for instance.
>

Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics always
have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.
Basically, the other priest classes are almost as good as clerics at
certain levels. Even when clerics and the other priests have the same
heal spell, it's not really the same, clerics heal more hp with the same
spell. The other two priests are almost as good as clerics at some
levels prior to 39, and never really catch up again after that. Shaman
have the huge advantage of being able to slow in addition to heal, thus
significantly increasing the effectiveness of their healing ability,
Druids get heal spells that fall in between shaman and cleric heal
spells. The low level slows however are not a huge slow percentage. I
can tell you that it was always a serious struggle for me to heal groups
during the last 4 or so levels that I had any given heal spell. Clerics
got the new heal spells at the right level to be effective healers for
their level, whereas druids and shaman got them a few levels too late.

Minor Healing - Level 1 all priest classes
Light Healing - Level 5 Cleric, Level 9 Shaman/Druid
Healing - Level 14 Cleric, Level 19 Shaman/Druid
Celestial Remedy - Level 19 Cleric
Greater Healing - Level 24 Cleric, Level 29 Shaman/Druid
Superior Healing - Level 34 Cleric, Level 39 Shaman/Druid
Complete Heal - Level 39 Cleric

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
June 2, 2005 8:32:24 PM

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

"Graeme Faelban" wrote

> "Wolfie" wrote

>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>> IIRC, for instance.
>
> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics always
> have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.

Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE
defining spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.
Yes, they're better than other healers at earlier levels too, but
that difference is minor compared to the huge difference CHeal
makes even with vastly higher-level druids and shaman, let
alone comparable level druids/shaman.

I've not been paying much attention since EQ2 was released,
but I'd guess a 39 cleric can still cast a single heal for more
HPs than a 70 shaman, right?
June 2, 2005 9:17:26 PM

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

"Rumbledor" wrote

> Fair enough, however, as I said, in EQ2, their primary goal is to
> make all priests, for example, heal equally effectively.

No, that's NOT their primary goal. They want all priests to be
able to play the role of healer equally effectively. There's a
subtle difference in there you seem to miss.

It's not "every priest heals the same" (or every fighter tanks the same
or whatever), it's "every member of a class can fulfill the role of
that class in a group." They do that in different ways, just like
(in theory) a shaman can heal as well as a cleric in EQ because
he can slow.

> In that scenario, there really isn't much need to play one priest
> sub-class over another, beyond your own particular tastes.

Pretty much. In EQ2 you see "group looking for healer", not
"group looking for cleric." (Or tank instead of warrior, etc.)
I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. Then again,
in EQ2 you see guilds recruiting or leveling alts for classes
they don't have because they're needed in raid encounters.
Again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

> What else does each offer that is really all that useful/desired
> that the other priest classes don't?

Whatever else they bring to a group, just like any other game.
Druids have group cures other priest classes don't, for instance.
(As do shaman IIRC.) Against some encounters, that's a
critical role.

> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but duplicating
> the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.

Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
*must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it is),
you're way out of the mainstream.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 10:11:39 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Rumbledor" wrote
>
< snip >
>
>> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but duplicating
>> the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.
>
> Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
> at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
> *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
> than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it is),
> you're way out of the mainstream.

Of course not. Encounter balance and tuning is just as important as class
balance in any scenario. Of all the complicated encounter scripts the EQ
designers have created, it still just boggles my mind that they mostly
revolve around the basic tank/heal/slow philosophy.

I just don't like the archetype system. I never have, mainly because no one
has been able to implement it in a way that provides adequate delineation
of skills and identity between all the various sub-classes. It just feels
like the archetype approach offers little benefit beyond being primarily
just a major convenience for the developers in tuning encounters.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 10:16:28 PM

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

In article <swGne.60773$VH2.1418@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Wolfie <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE
>defining spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.

Virtue, maybe?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 11:07:49 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:swGne.60773$VH2.1418
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Graeme Faelban" wrote
>
>> "Wolfie" wrote
>
>>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>>> IIRC, for instance.
>>
>> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics
always
>> have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.
>
> Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
> are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE
> defining spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.
> Yes, they're better than other healers at earlier levels too, but
> that difference is minor compared to the huge difference CHeal
> makes even with vastly higher-level druids and shaman, let
> alone comparable level druids/shaman.

I was not arguing that any other spell is the defining spell, however I
would argue about calling the other differences minor. They were large
enough such that at the 2 or 3 levels immediately prior to me recieving
my new heal spells, I could not keep up with being the main healer in a
group hunting in a level appropriate area, whereas a cleric could
trivially do so. This was particularly noticable in the high 20s and
high 30s.

CHeal is actually not really all that useful at level 39, it does not
become useful until the cleric is grouping with other characters that
have enough HP to make CHeal actually efficient to use.

>
> I've not been paying much attention since EQ2 was released,
> but I'd guess a 39 cleric can still cast a single heal for more
> HPs than a 70 shaman, right?
>

What's the level 39 CHeal cap now?

Going strictly by heal spells, yes, that is correct, if you also take
into account that as a shaman I can reduce the attack speed of mobs by up
to 70%, probably not. If a mob is only inflicting about 30% of the
damage it would otherwise inflict, I don't need a heal anywhere near as
large as a cleric does to heal the damage inflicted.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 11:08:15 PM

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

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D 7nids$p5d$1
@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <swGne.60773$VH2.1418@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Wolfie <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>>I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE defining spell for an EQ cleric
>>is anything other than CHeal.
>
> Virtue, maybe?
>

Who wants Virtue anymore, Conviction is the way to go. :b

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 2, 2005 11:14:00 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Rumbledor" wrote
>
>> Fair enough, however, as I said, in EQ2, their primary goal is to make
>> all priests, for example, heal equally effectively.
>
> No, that's NOT their primary goal. They want all priests to be
> able to play the role of healer equally effectively. There's a
> subtle difference in there you seem to miss.
>
> It's not "every priest heals the same" (or every fighter tanks the same
> or whatever), it's "every member of a class can fulfill the role of
> that class in a group." They do that in different ways, just like
> (in theory) a shaman can heal as well as a cleric in EQ because
> he can slow.
>
>> In that scenario, there really isn't much need to play one priest
>> sub-class over another, beyond your own particular tastes.
>
> Pretty much. In EQ2 you see "group looking for healer", not
> "group looking for cleric." (Or tank instead of warrior, etc.)
> I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. Then again,
> in EQ2 you see guilds recruiting or leveling alts for classes
> they don't have because they're needed in raid encounters.
> Again, I don't think that's a bad thing.
>
>> What else does each offer that is really all that useful/desired that
>> the other priest classes don't?
>
> Whatever else they bring to a group, just like any other game.
> Druids have group cures other priest classes don't, for instance.
> (As do shaman IIRC.) Against some encounters, that's a
> critical role.

As of level 33, a Mystic has a group heal/cure that will cure
disease/poison as I recall, and also has a AoE debuff that will reduce
the resistances of all mobs in an encounter. Off hand, I don't know what
a cleric or druid has at that level.

>
>> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but
duplicating
>> the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.
>
> Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
> at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
> *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
> than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it is),
> you're way out of the mainstream.
>

Well, I never did buy into the need for the "holy trinity" anyway. There
are many combinations of classes that will work just fine for xp
purposes, even in situations where you are not just getting single pulls.
First off, enchanters are not the only class that can mez, secondly,
warriors are not the only class that can tank, and finally, clerics are
not the only class that can heal. There are also other methods of doing
crowd control that do not involve mezzing. Mobs can be off tanked, they
can be rooted off, they can be pulled by and FD class that can reliably
get singles.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
June 2, 2005 11:33:17 PM

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

In article <Xns96698638B1F59Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> >
> > "Rumbledor" wrote
> >
> < snip >
> >
> >> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but duplicating
> >> the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.
> >
> > Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
> > at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
> > *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
> > than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it is),
> > you're way out of the mainstream.
>
> Of course not. Encounter balance and tuning is just as important as class
> balance in any scenario. Of all the complicated encounter scripts the EQ
> designers have created, it still just boggles my mind that they mostly
> revolve around the basic tank/heal/slow philosophy.
>
> I just don't like the archetype system. I never have, mainly because no one
> has been able to implement it in a way that provides adequate delineation
> of skills and identity between all the various sub-classes. It just feels
> like the archetype approach offers little benefit beyond being primarily
> just a major convenience for the developers in tuning encounters.

A 2nd problem with the archetype system is that replaying an alt is
particularly tedious, because a cleric *IS* a shaman until fairly late
in the game. Making the task of leveling up a 2nd "priest" class
particularly unappealing, instead of a fresh adventure right from level
1.
June 2, 2005 11:59:27 PM

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

In article <Xns9669869D44DBFrichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> >
> > "Rumbledor" wrote
> >
> >> Fair enough, however, as I said, in EQ2, their primary goal is to make
> >> all priests, for example, heal equally effectively.
> >
> > No, that's NOT their primary goal. They want all priests to be
> > able to play the role of healer equally effectively. There's a
> > subtle difference in there you seem to miss.
> >
> > It's not "every priest heals the same" (or every fighter tanks the same
> > or whatever), it's "every member of a class can fulfill the role of
> > that class in a group." They do that in different ways, just like
> > (in theory) a shaman can heal as well as a cleric in EQ because
> > he can slow.
> >
> >> In that scenario, there really isn't much need to play one priest
> >> sub-class over another, beyond your own particular tastes.
> >
> > Pretty much. In EQ2 you see "group looking for healer", not
> > "group looking for cleric." (Or tank instead of warrior, etc.)
> > I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. Then again,
> > in EQ2 you see guilds recruiting or leveling alts for classes
> > they don't have because they're needed in raid encounters.
> > Again, I don't think that's a bad thing.
> >
> >> What else does each offer that is really all that useful/desired that
> >> the other priest classes don't?
> >
> > Whatever else they bring to a group, just like any other game.
> > Druids have group cures other priest classes don't, for instance.
> > (As do shaman IIRC.) Against some encounters, that's a
> > critical role.
>
> As of level 33, a Mystic has a group heal/cure that will cure
> disease/poison as I recall, and also has a AoE debuff that will reduce
> the resistances of all mobs in an encounter. Off hand, I don't know what
> a cleric or druid has at that level.
>
> >
> >> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but
> duplicating
> >> the primary role equally on several is a bad idea, IMO.
> >
> > Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
> > at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
> > *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
> > than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it is),
> > you're way out of the mainstream.
> >
>
> Well, I never did buy into the need for the "holy trinity" anyway.

Quite right. There is no -need- for a trinity group.

> There
> are many combinations of classes that will work just fine for xp
> purposes, even in situations where you are not just getting single pulls.
> First off, enchanters are not the only class that can mez, secondly,
> warriors are not the only class that can tank, and finally, clerics are
> not the only class that can heal. There are also other methods of doing
> crowd control that do not involve mezzing. Mobs can be off tanked, they
> can be rooted off, they can be pulled by and FD class that can reliably
> get singles.

That said, a trinity group generates xp more efficiently (read: faster).
You can chain pull and simply never run out of hit points or mana. As
you mow down endless slowed mobs with no regard for time wasting pulling
finess. A trinity group is also "safer". The -best- tank, with the -
best- cc (and damn fine slow/haste), with the -best- healer... its
amazing what they can survive. Be it an unexpected 10 pull or a
flurrying, summoning, rampaging, gating named... the trinity can work
effectively just about anywhere. Most other groups simply aren't quite
as flexible, or read another way, are only as good "situationally".

I agree wholeheartedly that there are a myriad of very effective groups,
but the trinity group's desireability for people who want fast/safe xp
*is* justified... to the detriment of the game. Not only does it
encourage laziness, but having a group that is optimal in so many
situations detracts from the other classes. There should be more than
one holy trinity, depending on what you want to fight. As it stands,
there are -very- few places where a trinity core group isn't optimal.
The only i scenario I can think of is when fighting unmezzable,
unslowable, mobs... where an optimal group might be to swap the
enchanter out for a beastlord or shaman. But fighting unmezzable
unslowables is already stepping out of the realm of "safe/fast xp" for
what most people want out of an xp pick up group.

And -that- is the fundamental problem. It isn't that the holy trinity is
so good for safe-fast xp, its that safe-fast-xp is all that most pickup
groups need/want. A game that drove them through more unusual zones and
encounters would increase the usefulness of other classes without
rebalancing their actual power. But as long as you can pound out 10
levels or 200AAs in a single safe spot there is no reason to ever be in
situations that require doing something else.

Even adventerous players tend to want a trinity group to lay back and
xp. They might push the risk envelope with regular guild groups, and
they use they surely utilize the various classes to the best of their
abilities in those and on raids... but when its time to just grind xp...
its time to find a group that is least likely to screw up and grind
away. And that's a trinity core group against fairly simple mobs,
settling for something else only when a trinity group can't be
assembled.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 3, 2005 1:06:39 AM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d0904816636740f989b5c@shawnews:

> In article <Xns9669869D44DBFrichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
> RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
>> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
>> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Rumbledor" wrote
>> >
>> >> Fair enough, however, as I said, in EQ2, their primary goal is to
>> >> make all priests, for example, heal equally effectively.
>> >
>> > No, that's NOT their primary goal. They want all priests to be
>> > able to play the role of healer equally effectively. There's a
>> > subtle difference in there you seem to miss.
>> >
>> > It's not "every priest heals the same" (or every fighter tanks the
>> > same or whatever), it's "every member of a class can fulfill the
>> > role of that class in a group." They do that in different ways,
>> > just like (in theory) a shaman can heal as well as a cleric in EQ
>> > because he can slow.
>> >
>> >> In that scenario, there really isn't much need to play one priest
>> >> sub-class over another, beyond your own particular tastes.
>> >
>> > Pretty much. In EQ2 you see "group looking for healer", not
>> > "group looking for cleric." (Or tank instead of warrior, etc.)
>> > I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. Then again, in EQ2
>> > you see guilds recruiting or leveling alts for classes they don't
>> > have because they're needed in raid encounters. Again, I don't
>> > think that's a bad thing.
>> >
>> >> What else does each offer that is really all that useful/desired
>> >> that the other priest classes don't?
>> >
>> > Whatever else they bring to a group, just like any other game.
>> > Druids have group cures other priest classes don't, for instance.
>> > (As do shaman IIRC.) Against some encounters, that's a critical
>> > role.
>>
>> As of level 33, a Mystic has a group heal/cure that will cure
>> disease/poison as I recall, and also has a AoE debuff that will
>> reduce the resistances of all mobs in an encounter. Off hand, I
>> don't know what a cleric or druid has at that level.
>>
>> >
>> >> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but
>> >> duplicating the primary role equally on several is a bad idea,
>> >> IMO.
>> >
>> > Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
>> > at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
>> > *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
>> > than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it
>> > is), you're way out of the mainstream.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I never did buy into the need for the "holy trinity" anyway.
>
> Quite right. There is no -need- for a trinity group.
>
>> There
>> are many combinations of classes that will work just fine for xp
>> purposes, even in situations where you are not just getting single
>> pulls. First off, enchanters are not the only class that can mez,
>> secondly, warriors are not the only class that can tank, and finally,
>> clerics are not the only class that can heal. There are also other
>> methods of doing crowd control that do not involve mezzing. Mobs can
>> be off tanked, they can be rooted off, they can be pulled by and FD
>> class that can reliably get singles.
>
> That said, a trinity group generates xp more efficiently (read:
> faster). You can chain pull and simply never run out of hit points or
> mana. As you mow down endless slowed mobs with no regard for time
> wasting pulling finess. A trinity group is also "safer". The -best-
> tank, with the - best- cc (and damn fine slow/haste), with the -best-
> healer... its amazing what they can survive. Be it an unexpected 10
> pull or a flurrying, summoning, rampaging, gating named... the trinity
> can work effectively just about anywhere. Most other groups simply
> aren't quite as flexible, or read another way, are only as good
> "situationally".

Well, the absolute best xp group that I know of over time is an AoE
group. The best xp group I have personally ever been in was all level 65
(pre OOW), Paladin, 4 DPS, Shaman. The four DPS shifted between rogues,
monks, rangers over time, with the Paladin and I remaining for the entire
time. Both those groups are, however, situational, certainly. You
honestly do not need a cleric as the healer to keep the pulls going
nonstop, you also do not need the tank to be a warrior, a shadowknight or
paladin will work just as well for xp situations. The only time you
really need the enchanter is when you get a serious overpull, most times
a bard is actually better, as he can hugely increase the DPS of the group
while he is not too busy doing CC.

>
> I agree wholeheartedly that there are a myriad of very effective
> groups, but the trinity group's desireability for people who want
> fast/safe xp *is* justified... to the detriment of the game. Not only
> does it encourage laziness, but having a group that is optimal in so
> many situations detracts from the other classes. There should be more
> than one holy trinity, depending on what you want to fight. As it
> stands, there are -very- few places where a trinity core group isn't
> optimal. The only i scenario I can think of is when fighting
> unmezzable, unslowable, mobs... where an optimal group might be to
> swap the enchanter out for a beastlord or shaman. But fighting
> unmezzable unslowables is already stepping out of the realm of
> "safe/fast xp" for what most people want out of an xp pick up group.
>
> And -that- is the fundamental problem. It isn't that the holy trinity
> is so good for safe-fast xp, its that safe-fast-xp is all that most
> pickup groups need/want. A game that drove them through more unusual
> zones and encounters would increase the usefulness of other classes
> without rebalancing their actual power. But as long as you can pound
> out 10 levels or 200AAs in a single safe spot there is no reason to
> ever be in situations that require doing something else.
>
> Even adventerous players tend to want a trinity group to lay back and
> xp. They might push the risk envelope with regular guild groups, and
> they use they surely utilize the various classes to the best of their
> abilities in those and on raids... but when its time to just grind
> xp... its time to find a group that is least likely to screw up and
> grind away. And that's a trinity core group against fairly simple
> mobs, settling for something else only when a trinity group can't be
> assembled.
>

I can honestly say that I have never bothered with making sure I have the
holy trinity in any xp group I have been in. I have xped in a wide
variety of zones at low and high levels, more often than not with a
knight class as the tank, swapping in a druid or cleric interchangably,
and at times making do with just me as the healer and slower. This
includes doing things like Tipt, where most people will say that a shaman
is superflous, and you must have a cleric and a warrior to do it. The
first time I did Tipt, and succeeded by the way, was with a Paladin tank,
a cleric, me, a ranger, a necro, and a rogue.

Seriously, for fast/safe xp, you go to safe spots where you really don't
need the holy trinity anyway. Prior to OOW, fire was the spot to go for
xp, anyone but a total idiot can single pull there, with, worst case,
getting one add. The mobs you are fighting there for the best xp are
rootable, so crowd control is trivial with several rooters available.

With OOW, RSS is probably about the best xp spot available (maybe anguish
is better, no clue, will be a long time until I see it, if ever). For
RSS, things are a bit more tricky, and something close to the holy
trinity is pretty close to a must, although you certainly can get by
without it, if you don't mind living a bit dangerously.

With DoN, suddenly it became easy again. Bards are actually more
desirable than enchanters usually then, as they can pull, as well as
crowd control, and significantly increase DPS. Druids and clerics are
interchangable as the main healer, and any tank class works just fine.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 3, 2005 1:11:21 AM

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

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d08fe5d9c73db34989b5b@shawnews:

> In article <Xns96698638B1F59Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
>> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Rumbledor" wrote
>> >
>> < snip >
>> >
>> >> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but
>> >> duplicating the primary role equally on several is a bad idea,
>> >> IMO.
>> >
>> > Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
>> > at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
>> > *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
>> > than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it
>> > is), you're way out of the mainstream.
>>
>> Of course not. Encounter balance and tuning is just as important as
>> class balance in any scenario. Of all the complicated encounter
>> scripts the EQ designers have created, it still just boggles my mind
>> that they mostly revolve around the basic tank/heal/slow philosophy.
>>
>> I just don't like the archetype system. I never have, mainly because
>> no one has been able to implement it in a way that provides adequate
>> delineation of skills and identity between all the various
>> sub-classes. It just feels like the archetype approach offers little
>> benefit beyond being primarily just a major convenience for the
>> developers in tuning encounters.
>
> A 2nd problem with the archetype system is that replaying an alt is
> particularly tedious, because a cleric *IS* a shaman until fairly late
> in the game. Making the task of leveling up a 2nd "priest" class
> particularly unappealing, instead of a fresh adventure right from
> level 1.
>

Well, in EQ2 they split at level 10, and it's hardly a mind numbing task
to get that far.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
June 3, 2005 2:25:43 AM

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

Rumbledor scribbled:

> I just don't like the archetype system. I never have, mainly because
> no one has been able to implement it in a way that provides adequate
> delineation of skills and identity between all the various
> sub-classes.

I'd agree EQ2's system "feels broke", especially at lower levels.
I've never really understood why they didn't skip the generic
steps. It means they'd have to balance the classes back farther,
but that's not really much of an issue seeing how quickly people
level to 10.

> It just feels like the archetype approach offers little
> benefit beyond being primarily just a major convenience for the
> developers in tuning encounters.

Or class balance...

Then again, I'd argue EQ (and most likely every other game
of the ilk) already use the same system -- cleric/druid/shaman
are all healers, etc. All EQ2 has done is a better job of
avoiding the pitfalls they jumped into in EQ.
June 3, 2005 3:27:16 AM

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

In article <Xns96699A839251Crichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d08fe5d9c73db34989b5b@shawnews:
>
> > In article <Xns96698638B1F59Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:GaHne.91136$IO.56752
> >> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Rumbledor" wrote
> >> >
> >> < snip >
> >> >
> >> >> I'm all for a large number of different classes to play, but
> >> >> duplicating the primary role equally on several is a bad idea,
> >> >> IMO.
> >> >
> >> > Then you're fine with the "holy trinity" of EQ? A group needs
> >> > at least a warrior and cleric, and 4 other people (one of which
> >> > *must* be an enchanter if the group is going to be doing more
> >> > than single pulls?) If that's your point (and I don't believe it
> >> > is), you're way out of the mainstream.
> >>
> >> Of course not. Encounter balance and tuning is just as important as
> >> class balance in any scenario. Of all the complicated encounter
> >> scripts the EQ designers have created, it still just boggles my mind
> >> that they mostly revolve around the basic tank/heal/slow philosophy.
> >>
> >> I just don't like the archetype system. I never have, mainly because
> >> no one has been able to implement it in a way that provides adequate
> >> delineation of skills and identity between all the various
> >> sub-classes. It just feels like the archetype approach offers little
> >> benefit beyond being primarily just a major convenience for the
> >> developers in tuning encounters.
> >
> > A 2nd problem with the archetype system is that replaying an alt is
> > particularly tedious, because a cleric *IS* a shaman until fairly late
> > in the game. Making the task of leveling up a 2nd "priest" class
> > particularly unappealing, instead of a fresh adventure right from
> > level 1.
> >
>
> Well, in EQ2 they split at level 10, and it's hardly a mind numbing task
> to get that far.

Good point. I overstated "late in the game" quite a bit for EQ2.

Still, for me at least, its at the beginning, when you first log in that
I most crave diversity ... Do I want to make an X or a Y or a Z?? I'll
roll up one of each and see which feels best... in an archetype system
this -is- pretty tedious, and utterly pointless, because I won't know
anything until I get them *all* past the divergence level. :) 
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 3, 2005 7:11:22 PM

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:32:24 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:

>
>"Graeme Faelban" wrote
>
>> "Wolfie" wrote
>
>>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>>> IIRC, for instance.
>>
>> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics always
>> have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.
>
>Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
>are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE
>defining spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.

No,its resurrection.

Mheldur 65 Cleric
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 3, 2005 7:11:23 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:iml0a1l2773ecou59loq3hgm0dld3dbj8l@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:32:24 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Graeme Faelban" wrote
>>
>>> "Wolfie" wrote
>>
>>>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>>>> IIRC, for instance.
>>>
>>> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics
always
>>> have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.
>>
>>Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
>>are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE defining
>>spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.
>
> No,its resurrection.
>

Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
the job...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 5, 2005 6:27:51 AM

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

On 3 Jun 2005 14:22:45 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:iml0a1l2773ecou59loq3hgm0dld3dbj8l@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:32:24 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Graeme Faelban" wrote
>>>
>>>> "Wolfie" wrote
>>>
>>>>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>>>>> IIRC, for instance.
>>>>
>>>> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics
>always
>>>> have the heal spells available before the other priest classes.
>>>
>>>Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
>>>are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE defining
>>>spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.
>>
>> No,its resurrection.
>>
>
>Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
>intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
>now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
>the job...


How often do you see a group saying,oh lets fill the last spot with a
resser,lets get a necro? :p 
And about Pallies,in my experience people are not happy with a 90%
res,not to mention the fact that a cleric heal comes always with a
1.5k hp buff.

Mheldur 65 Cleric
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 5, 2005 6:27:52 AM

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

"Meldur" <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:34h4a1tgh31ar65qkc38u69v8u1o9s9vl2@4ax.com...

> And about Pallies,in my experience people are not happy with a 90%
> res,not to mention the fact that a cleric heal comes always with a
> 1.5k hp buff.
>

People are idiots. This is not a surprise. Nor a reason to base a class
choice on.


--
Davian / Dearic (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 7:39:45 AM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
: Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
: intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
: now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
: the job...

Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time the
price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were stuck
with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and shaman
summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to vote that
yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the defining spell of
the clerical class.

K
June 6, 2005 11:36:58 AM

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

"Hippie Ramone" wrote

> I'd have to vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez
> is/was the defining spell of the clerical class.

They could give every class in EQ the same rez spells clerics
get and clerics would still be in demand due to CHeal. It's
just overpowering when compared to other priest's heals.

Rez is more like a druid's ports -- yeah, it's nice, but you could
usually get one w/o actually having to group with the druid for
longer than the port itself... Hardly anyone wanted a cleric
rez until they got the 96% one anyway even if they were
grouped with a cleric with a lower-level one.
June 6, 2005 12:10:01 PM

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

"Graeme Faelban" wrote

> Well, I never did buy into the need for the "holy trinity" anyway. There
> are many combinations of classes that will work just fine for xp
> purposes, even in situations where you are not just getting single pulls.

I agree -- but that's possible because they balanced the classes
to some degree, at least vs. XP mobs. EQ2 isn't any different,
regardless of the mechanism. They've just managed to do it
without the problems caused by CHeal and Slow (and by
adding a mechanism I agree is a bit forced -- class division at
levels rather than initially.)
June 6, 2005 12:15:07 PM

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

"42" wrote

> A 2nd problem with the archetype system is that replaying an alt is
> particularly tedious, because a cleric *IS* a shaman until fairly late
> in the game. Making the task of leveling up a 2nd "priest" class
> particularly unappealing, instead of a fresh adventure right from level
> 1.

I agree with the thought but I'd have to say I certainly don't consider
25ish (by then they're pretty well unique) "fairly late in the game."
But I'd certainly agree going up to around 15 mind-numbing and
I've no idea why they decided not to just differentiate the classes
at level 1. About the only thing it does is force awareness that a
fighter is a fighter, even when they're something else in 15 levels.
It's just a *tedious* education.

Of course they supposedly have plans to increae the EQ2 level
cap to around 200 eventually. In that light playing to 20 isn't
that big a burden...
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 1:26:42 PM

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

<kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote:
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> : Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
> : intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
> : now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
> : the job...
>
> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time the
> price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were stuck
> with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and shaman
> summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to vote that
> yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the defining spell of
> the clerical class.

Without a doubt, the defining spell of clerics is complete heal.

Without a doubt, the defining spell of the entire game of Everquest is
complete heal.

The game would be playable without any form of rez. A lot less popular, but
playable. Without complete heal, the game would not exist in the form we
know it (not all would consider this a bad thing, but then some would like
seeing rez removed too...). Every single "hard" encounter, going all the
way back to the base game, would have to be changed if CH disappeared, up to
and including a huge portion of the 1-group content.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 6:00:58 PM

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

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:34h4a1tgh31ar65qkc38u69v8u1o9s9vl2@4ax.com:

> On 3 Jun 2005 14:22:45 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:iml0a1l2773ecou59loq3hgm0dld3dbj8l@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:32:24 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Graeme Faelban" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> "Wolfie" wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> Clerics don't come into their own until level 39 in EQ
>>>>>> IIRC, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not entirely true, other than at the very lowest levels, Clerics
>>>>> always have the heal spells available before the other priest
>>>>> classes.
>>>>
>>>>Compared to the difference CHeal makes, the other differences
>>>>are relatively minor. I doubt anyone can seriously argue THE
defining
>>>>spell for an EQ cleric is anything other than CHeal.
>>>
>>> No,its resurrection.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for
all
>>intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman
can
>>now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to
finish
>>the job...
>
>
> How often do you see a group saying,oh lets fill the last spot with a
> resser,lets get a necro? :p 
> And about Pallies,in my experience people are not happy with a 90%
> res,not to mention the fact that a cleric heal comes always with a
> 1.5k hp buff.
>

Well, Paladins, a lot more often than you imply here. Necros, I admit,
not too many folks ask for one as the rezzer, but, many are quite happy
when they do have the necro there, and he can rez...

Personally, I find the hp buff and healing abilities to be far more
important than the rez.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 6:01:07 PM

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

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:u2Toe.69157$VH2.30517
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "Hippie Ramone" wrote
>
>> I'd have to vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez
>> is/was the defining spell of the clerical class.
>
> They could give every class in EQ the same rez spells clerics
> get and clerics would still be in demand due to CHeal. It's
> just overpowering when compared to other priest's heals.

Well, I'm a firm believer that clerics should be the premier healing class
and that druids and shaman should be made more effective within their own
classes. I play a shaman and begging for better heals just makes me feel
cheap. It seems that the only reason the shaman community might accept that
as any sort of class balancing is the fact that we have trouble envisioning
any other options.

Several classes having the same key abilities is class balance done wrong,
IMO. Sure, they would each be just as desirable in a group, but when it
doesn't matter which one you take, then you've got too many classes. Make
me more like a shaman, not more like a cleric.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 6:16:05 PM

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

Hippie Ramone <kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote in
news:D 80gi1$iad$1@brand.scrye.com:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>: Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for
>: all intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and
>: Shaman can now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro,
>: paladin) to finish the job...
>
> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time
> the price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were
> stuck with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and
> shaman summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to
> vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the
> defining spell of the clerical class.
>

Define fairly recently. Pretty sure Paladin 90% rez is Kunark era, which
would mean it's existed for a majority of the life of EQ.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 7:30:48 PM

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

In article <Xns966D5BC129F90Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>,
Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>Make me more like a shaman, not more like a cleric.

What would make you more like a shaman?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 7:47:15 PM

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

wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote in news:D 81q78$3pn$1
@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <Xns966D5BC129F90Rumbledorhotmailcom@216.148.227.77>,
> Rumbledor <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>>Make me more like a shaman, not more like a cleric.
>
> What would make you more like a shaman?

DoT's, buffs/debuffs, curses, etc. Don't you read or watch TV? :) 

I'm not saying shaman shouldn't heal. I'm just saying we shouldn't be just
as good at it as everyone clerics. That's not the answer.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 7:55:14 PM

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

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnda8n94.76m.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> : Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is
>> : for all intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids
>> : and Shaman can now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric,
>> : necro, paladin) to finish the job...
>>
>> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time
>> the price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins
>> were stuck with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid
>> and shaman summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd
>> have to vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was
>> the defining spell of the clerical class.
>
> Without a doubt, the defining spell of clerics is complete heal.
>
> Without a doubt, the defining spell of the entire game of Everquest is
> complete heal.
>
> The game would be playable without any form of rez. A lot less
> popular, but playable. Without complete heal, the game would not
> exist in the form we know it (not all would consider this a bad thing,
> but then some would like seeing rez removed too...). Every single
> "hard" encounter, going all the way back to the base game, would have
> to be changed if CH disappeared, up to and including a huge portion of
> the 1-group content.
>

Well, not every encounter, there are already a number of "hard"
encounters that require using fast heals rather then CHeal, but, in
general, yes, that is true. The one other real game changing set of
spells is the Slow lines of spells.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 6, 2005 10:45:37 PM

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

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns966D541B52F01richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4...
> Hippie Ramone <kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote in
> news:D 80gi1$iad$1@brand.scrye.com:
>
> > Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >: Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for
> >: all intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and
> >: Shaman can now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro,
> >: paladin) to finish the job...
> >
> > Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time
> > the price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were
> > stuck with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and
> > shaman summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to
> > vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the
> > defining spell of the clerical class.
> >
>
> Define fairly recently. Pretty sure Paladin 90% rez is Kunark era, which
> would mean it's existed for a majority of the life of EQ.
>

Yep.

Paladins have been able to rez since before CH was a useful spell.


--
Davian / Dearic (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 2:54:53 AM

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

Wolfie wrote:
> "42" wrote
>
>
>>A 2nd problem with the archetype system is that replaying an alt is
>>particularly tedious, because a cleric *IS* a shaman until fairly late
>>in the game. Making the task of leveling up a 2nd "priest" class
>>particularly unappealing, instead of a fresh adventure right from level
>>1.
>
>
> I agree with the thought but I'd have to say I certainly don't consider
> 25ish (by then they're pretty well unique) "fairly late in the game."
> But I'd certainly agree going up to around 15 mind-numbing and
> I've no idea why they decided not to just differentiate the classes
> at level 1. About the only thing it does is force awareness that a
> fighter is a fighter, even when they're something else in 15 levels.
> It's just a *tedious* education.
>
> Of course they supposedly have plans to increae the EQ2 level
> cap to around 200 eventually. In that light playing to 20 isn't
> that big a burden...
>
>
But when you are replaying you can zip through te early levels because you know how to min max, can buy collection quest
items, etc. Getting every quest for a particular mob and getting 3 credits per kill will be even quicker if they bring
out this new rule they are talking about that collection quests don't count to the total number of quests.

I think there's a few like gnoll quests, bear quests and another one where you can get 3 credits for each kill, possibly
4 for gnolls. And killing mobs en masse is even easier than it used to be. It doesn't take much effort to get through
the undead on the island NE of qeynos, whereas it used to be a nightmare solo.

If only they would arrange a system of quest sharing, or something to encourage people with the same quests to group. I
love the game best when i am doing group quests. Soloing 40 of anything, especially if you are one of the classes which
must fight them singly, is tedious solo, and easy and fast in a group. I was in a group in TS fighting tough ++ gnolls
and we still chewed through them. Solo, it's time to make like a rabbit.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 5:32:35 AM

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

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:26:42 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:

><kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> : Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
>> : intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
>> : now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
>> : the job...
>>
>> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time the
>> price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were stuck
>> with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and shaman
>> summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to vote that
>> yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the defining spell of
>> the clerical class.
>
>Without a doubt, the defining spell of clerics is complete heal.
>
>Without a doubt, the defining spell of the entire game of Everquest is
>complete heal.
>
>The game would be playable without any form of rez. A lot less popular, but
>playable. Without complete heal, the game would not exist in the form we
>know it (not all would consider this a bad thing, but then some would like
>seeing rez removed too...). Every single "hard" encounter, going all the
>way back to the base game, would have to be changed if CH disappeared, up to
>and including a huge portion of the 1-group content.

Hm,last hard encounter for me was a Don mission with a flurrying end
mob,Cheal failed badly and we wiped.Next attempt I throw an HoT on the
Tank before he engaged,and kept him alive with fast heals.

Mheldur 65 Cleric
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 5:37:14 AM

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

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:36:58 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:

>
>"Hippie Ramone" wrote
>
>> I'd have to vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez
>> is/was the defining spell of the clerical class.
>
>They could give every class in EQ the same rez spells clerics
>get and clerics would still be in demand due to CHeal. It's
>just overpowering when compared to other priest's heals.
>
>Rez is more like a druid's ports -- yeah, it's nice, but you could
>usually get one w/o actually having to group with the druid for
>longer than the port itself...

So you are saying ,you want to do a Ldon or Don without a resser
in group?Sorry,but you have to play another game like me,since
Don its all about instanced encounters.

Mheldur 65 cleric
June 7, 2005 6:49:47 AM

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

In article <a9n9a1plo3im5077d6p8sm5gq3tr1nbl2f@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 07:36:58 GMT, "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hippie Ramone" wrote
> >
> >> I'd have to vote that yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez
> >> is/was the defining spell of the clerical class.
> >
> >They could give every class in EQ the same rez spells clerics
> >get and clerics would still be in demand due to CHeal. It's
> >just overpowering when compared to other priest's heals.
> >
> >Rez is more like a druid's ports -- yeah, it's nice, but you could
> >usually get one w/o actually having to group with the druid for
> >longer than the port itself...
>
> So you are saying ,you want to do a Ldon or Don without a resser
> in group?Sorry,but you have to play another game like me,since
> Don its all about instanced encounters.

Given that you can have all your corpses summoned and rezzed at the
guild lobby afterwards you don't need a rezzer in group.
June 7, 2005 6:51:58 AM

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

In article <q2n9a11pbk19705ujd44p57bc3mhaj6g3j@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:26:42 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
>
> ><kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote:
> >> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> : Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
> >> : intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
> >> : now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
> >> : the job...
> >>
> >> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time the
> >> price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were stuck
> >> with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and shaman
> >> summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to vote that
> >> yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the defining spell of
> >> the clerical class.
> >
> >Without a doubt, the defining spell of clerics is complete heal.
> >
> >Without a doubt, the defining spell of the entire game of Everquest is
> >complete heal.
> >
> >The game would be playable without any form of rez. A lot less popular, but
> >playable. Without complete heal, the game would not exist in the form we
> >know it (not all would consider this a bad thing, but then some would like
> >seeing rez removed too...). Every single "hard" encounter, going all the
> >way back to the base game, would have to be changed if CH disappeared, up to
> >and including a huge portion of the 1-group content.
>
> Hm,last hard encounter for me was a Don mission with a flurrying end
> mob,Cheal failed badly and we wiped.Next attempt I throw an HoT on the
> Tank before he engaged,and kept him alive with fast heals.

I think he was referring to CH-chains to fight million hitpoint mobs. Or
more loosely the raid game in general.

And while for particular encounters you may have to drop CH in favour of
fast heals in one group content, you'd have a pile of downtime if that's
all you used. In other words, the game is balanced around the assumption
that you'll have this massively efficient heal available.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 1:31:37 PM

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

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <q2n9a11pbk19705ujd44p57bc3mhaj6g3j@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> online.de says...
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:26:42 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:
> >
> > ><kdeacon@scrye.com> wrote:
> > >> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >> : Oh, you mean that spell that Paladins and Necros get one that is for all
> > >> : intents and purposes as good? Not to mention that Druids and Shaman can
> > >> : now 0 xp rez in a rezzer of some type (cleric, necro, paladin) to finish
> > >> : the job...
> > >>
> > >> Necros didn't see a rez until mid-levels in Kunark, and at the time the
> > >> price of an Essence Emerald wasn't at all worth it. Paladins were stuck
> > >> with the what, 10% rez until fairly recently. The druid and shaman
> > >> summons to corpse spells are really really recent. I'd have to vote that
> > >> yes indeed, for most of the life of EQ. Rez is/was the defining spell of
> > >> the clerical class.
> > >
> > >Without a doubt, the defining spell of clerics is complete heal.
> > >
> > >Without a doubt, the defining spell of the entire game of Everquest is
> > >complete heal.
> > >
> > >The game would be playable without any form of rez. A lot less popular, but
> > >playable. Without complete heal, the game would not exist in the form we
> > >know it (not all would consider this a bad thing, but then some would like
> > >seeing rez removed too...). Every single "hard" encounter, going all the
> > >way back to the base game, would have to be changed if CH disappeared, up to
> > >and including a huge portion of the 1-group content.
> >
> > Hm,last hard encounter for me was a Don mission with a flurrying end
> > mob,Cheal failed badly and we wiped.Next attempt I throw an HoT on the
> > Tank before he engaged,and kept him alive with fast heals.
>
> I think he was referring to CH-chains to fight million hitpoint mobs. Or
> more loosely the raid game in general.
>
> And while for particular encounters you may have to drop CH in favour of
> fast heals in one group content, you'd have a pile of downtime if that's
> all you used. In other words, the game is balanced around the assumption
> that you'll have this massively efficient heal available.

Won't elaborate, 42 hit the nail on the head regarding raiding and grouping
both. =)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 2:01:45 PM

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

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:

>Well, not every encounter, there are already a number of "hard"
>encounters that require using fast heals rather then CHeal, but, in
>general, yes, that is true. The one other real game changing set of
>spells is the Slow lines of spells.

I agree that slow is one of those spells that totally affects game play.
I finally got my ranger up to level 70, and have some elemental gear
now, and can tank in quite a few places now, as long as the mob is
slowed. In some of these places, once the mob is slowed, I can
self heal myself and be fine without outside healing. Without slow
I'm visting my soul binder, unless I root the mob and back off and switch
to my bow. And earthcaller slow just doesn't do it. Was doing it
tonight in the Ascent, and sometimes earthcaller never fired once
during the entire battle, and the trio I was with (rng, monk, dru)
had a hard time keeping up when the mob wasn't slowed.

Thats why I'm glad I duo with a Shammy a lot. Shammy and a ranger
make a great duo. A more reliable slow and haste better than
my eyepatch of pluder can provide.

I would also add that the KEI line of spells are another make or
break spell. How many times have you been grouped, and someones
KEI ran out, and they HAD to run back to PoK for a refresh?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
June 7, 2005 6:14:48 PM

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

Mike Pritchard From: <mpp@mail.mppsystems.com> wrote in news:42a57089$0
$40891$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>Well, not every encounter, there are already a number of "hard"
>>encounters that require using fast heals rather then CHeal, but, in
>>general, yes, that is true. The one other real game changing set of
>>spells is the Slow lines of spells.
>
> I agree that slow is one of those spells that totally affects game
play.
> I finally got my ranger up to level 70, and have some elemental gear
> now, and can tank in quite a few places now, as long as the mob is
> slowed. In some of these places, once the mob is slowed, I can
> self heal myself and be fine without outside healing. Without slow
> I'm visting my soul binder, unless I root the mob and back off and
switch
> to my bow. And earthcaller slow just doesn't do it. Was doing it
> tonight in the Ascent, and sometimes earthcaller never fired once
> during the entire battle, and the trio I was with (rng, monk, dru)
> had a hard time keeping up when the mob wasn't slowed.

Lol, well, if you had a shaman or enchanter there to seriously boost your
dex, it would proc more. :b Of course, the mob would be slowed in that
case anyway... Actually, on some raid targets, back pre PoP, I remember
rangers getting lucky and landing Earthcaller slow before anyone else was
able to land a slow.

>
> Thats why I'm glad I duo with a Shammy a lot. Shammy and a ranger
> make a great duo. A more reliable slow and haste better than
> my eyepatch of pluder can provide.
>
> I would also add that the KEI line of spells are another make or
> break spell. How many times have you been grouped, and someones
> KEI ran out, and they HAD to run back to PoK for a refresh?
>

Those people are idiots. KEI is not a make or break spell, it's
definitely nice to have, but, xping is done quite readilly even without
it.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
!