Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Got the WoW 14 day trial, looking for class suggestions ...

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 1:24:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Well, I got the PC Gamer mag that people talked about in this group and got
the DVD with the World of Warcraft free trial, and the problem that made me
avoid the game for so long has hit me again: there are no race/class
combinations that I like. Add to it that certain classes and races seem to
be considered really undesirable (okay, I read the Gamefaqs board, sue me
[grin]), and I'm torn about what to try in case I actually, you know, LIKE
the game and want to keep playing it with the characters I make here (or
even if I have to start over I'd like to keep the same classes I found fun).

Note that I'll be playing on RP servers if I can, so PvP is not a huge
concern for me. Also note that I tend to be a casual player and tend to
solo a lot, so how easy the class is to solo is a consideration.

So, the only race I had any interest in playing was undead. I don't want to
play a warrior, priest, or rogue. Which is better: warlock or mage? I'll
have to think up a concept for either of these, though.

I'm also thinking about making a second character, possibly on the Alliance
side. The only class I really wanted to play was paladin, although
supposedly they get a lot of hate from other players, which isn't that big a
concern I suppose but I like to be liked [grin]. I was also considering
druid, but I don't want to play as a huge moo-cow and don't really like
Night Elves or their poor reputation in general. If I played a paladin, I'd
probably play a dwarf paladin because it seems cooler. I considered playing
a hunter for soloing but the work involved in taming and keeping pets happy
isn't really for me. Any ideas on cool class/race combinations to try on
the Alliance side? Noting that I don't want to play the same class I play
as undead, and still don't want to be a priest, warrior, or rogue.

Oh, and what's a good, less crowded RP server?

More about : wow day trial class suggestions

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 6:28:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> once tried to test me
with:

> So, the only race I had any interest in playing was undead. I don't
> want to play a warrior, priest, or rogue. Which is better: warlock or
> mage? I'll have to think up a concept for either of these, though.
>

Warlock probably can solo slightly better than a Mage, at least, that's
been my experience with a Mage 21 and Warlock 21, so that could change at
higher levels. But both are soloable, as long as you don't try too much as
the mage.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 6:44:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ftWFe.3204$d02.609848@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Note that I'll be playing on RP servers if I can, so PvP is not a huge
> concern for me. Also note that I tend to be a casual player and tend to
> solo a lot, so how easy the class is to solo is a consideration.

Pretty much all classes solo well.


> So, the only race I had any interest in playing was undead. I don't want to
> play a warrior, priest, or rogue. Which is better: warlock or mage? I'll
> have to think up a concept for either of these, though.

Mages are one of the best classes in the game. Very well balanced
talent trees, always welcome in a group, and more utility options than
any other class.

Warlocks are relatively rare. They have several abilities that,
combined with their unpopularity at the high end, make them highly
sought-after in groups. On the downside, many warlocks seem unhappy
with the class.

For the other classes, in brief:

Druids are also relatively rare. As one of the only two classes that
can act as primary healer, they're popular in groups--the downside is
that they suffer in any role *other* than healer. Probably not the best
choice for soloing. The devs promise changes in the next patch.

Hunters whine more than any other class. This is not entirely
unjustified--but the class is much better than the average hunter gives
it credit for. Superb soloers. Nothing special in groups.

Rogues rule in PvP, have excellent choices in their talent trees, solo
well, and are quite useful in groups. Probably the best thief class
ever seen in a MMORPG. There are, however, too damn many rogues out
there. Roll something else. :>

Shamans are godly. There are too damn many shamans as well.

Paladins are sub-par. Mediocre tanks, poor healers, lousy dps. Great
survival skills and some nice group buffs. Hard to recommend.

Priests are loved in groups, unsurprisingly. They've also got amazing
damage output, with the right choice of talents--which is nice for
soloing and brutally effective in PvP. Early levels are a bit of a
slog, though.

Warriors are the first and last choice for main tank in groups. Not so
hot in PvP. A tougher class to play than it may first seem.


> I'm also thinking about making a second character, possibly on the Alliance
> side. The only class I really wanted to play was paladin, although
> supposedly they get a lot of hate from other players, which isn't that big a
> concern I suppose but I like to be liked [grin]. I was also considering
> druid, but I don't want to play as a huge moo-cow and don't really like
> Night Elves or their poor reputation in general. If I played a paladin, I'd
> probably play a dwarf paladin because it seems cooler. I considered playing
> a hunter for soloing but the work involved in taming and keeping pets happy
> isn't really for me. Any ideas on cool class/race combinations to try on
> the Alliance side? Noting that I don't want to play the same class I play
> as undead, and still don't want to be a priest, warrior, or rogue.

Druids are rare enough that the bad night elf rep doesn't stick to them
as much.

Gnomes and dwarves are both uncommon compared to night elves and humans.


> Oh, and what's a good, less crowded RP server?

There are no "less crowded" RP servers. :>

- Damien
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 7:34:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>> Oh, and what's a good, less crowded RP server?

>There are no "less crowded" RP servers. :>

There are few low pop German languages ones ^_^
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 4:53:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nel tempo Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:24:27 -0400, il mio fedele schiavo Wu
desto' nel mio animo interesse sopra il conversare di "Allan C
Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca>:

>So, the only race I had any interest in playing was undead. I don't want to
>play a warrior, priest, or rogue. Which is better: warlock or mage? I'll
>have to think up a concept for either of these, though.

I'm playing a warlock and I'm pretty satisfied with her.
I like the demon minions, especially the imp (and its occasional witty
remarks); I also like the versatility you get, and the support you can
provide to your party fellows with healthstones and soulstones, not to
mention a clever use of DOTs and curses.

Oh, and since that character is an enchanter and that profession burns
lots and lots of money (I never sell enchantments, saving them for
guildies), a free mount is something more than a blessing.

I plan to try out a mage sooner or later and compare the two, however.

As for the concept, I think that you get many hooks from every race or
class. Good thinking.
(but if you choose warlock, you _must_ be at least in part arrogant
and evil!)

>Oh, and what's a good, less crowded RP server?

You must be American to say that. I don't know. *sigh*

Parvati V
--
"Cosa e' celvello? Pai non ha cosa del genele" - Pai, 3x3 occhi
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino)
http://parvatiquinta.altervista.org
IHGGera #1069, IAFa #182 ^^^
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 5:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nel tempo Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:44:34 -0700, il mio fedele schiavo Wu
desto' nel mio animo interesse sopra il conversare di Damien Neil
<neild-usenet4@misago.org>:

>Warlocks are relatively rare.

In my guild we have only a handful of mages and some 20+ warlocks :D 
(but he's right on a general basis)

>They have several abilities that,
>combined with their unpopularity at the high end,

unpopularity?

>make them highly
>sought-after in groups. On the downside, many warlocks seem unhappy
>with the class.

Oh, that must be because of PvP.
In PvE I'd say that warlocks simply rule.

>Paladins are sub-par. Mediocre tanks, poor healers, lousy dps. Great
>survival skills and some nice group buffs. Hard to recommend.

They are quite an impossible match in PvP, however. Way worse than
shamans.

>Priests are loved in groups, unsurprisingly. They've also got amazing
>damage output, with the right choice of talents--which is nice for
>soloing and brutally effective in PvP.

I went the opposite way. If I want a damage dealer I use my warlock.
As a priest, when I'm in a group I usually just heal.

>Druids are rare enough that the bad night elf rep doesn't stick to them
>as much.

Well, honestly I can't say that their rep is played much... at least,
from what I have seen.
And many Horde consider the Night Elves the only decent Alliance race
:]

Parvati V
--
"Cosa e' celvello? Pai non ha cosa del genele" - Pai, 3x3 occhi
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino)
http://parvatiquinta.altervista.org
IHGGera #1069, IAFa #182 ^^^
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 28, 2005 5:17:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:24:27 -0400, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:

> So, the only race I had any interest in playing was undead. I don't want to
> play a warrior, priest, or rogue. Which is better: warlock or mage? I'll
> have to think up a concept for either of these, though.

I'd pick the Warlock, if these are the only two choices that appeal to you.
Mages can solo somewhat well at medium and high levels, but the Warlock is
a bit more versatile and enables you to have a pet. (Can even switch
between different types, depending on the situation.) Warlocks also have
some interesting class quests.

> I'm also thinking about making a second character, possibly on the Alliance
> side. The only class I really wanted to play was paladin, although
> supposedly they get a lot of hate from other players, which isn't that big a
> concern I suppose but I like to be liked [grin].

Undeads aren't the best choice if you want to be *liked*. :p  They are also
overly popular.

> a hunter for soloing but the work involved in taming and keeping pets happy
> isn't really for me.

Hmm, perhaps the Warlock isn't such a good choice, then. You'll need to
collect soulstones and such, which I find slightly more annoying than
having to feed your pet. Taming is very easy and fast.

> Any ideas on cool class/race combinations to try on
> the Alliance side?

You don't really like a lot of what the game has to offer in regard to
classes and races, so your options are limited. Yóu could try a Dwarven
Paladin or a Gnomish Mage, if you go with an Undead Warlock. Both of those
start in Ironforge, which is "the" hub on the Alliance side.

The game picks up at levels 20 and 40, so try not to split your time too
much, if you don't know yet for how long you'll play.

M.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 4:03:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <fbehe194reo7oc7fdr17ir3ekd3cojeq6s@4ax.com>,
Parvati V <parvatiquinta@email.it> wrote:
> Nel tempo Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:44:34 -0700, il mio fedele schiavo Wu
> desto' nel mio animo interesse sopra il conversare di Damien Neil
> <neild-usenet4@misago.org>:

> >[Warlocks] have several abilities that,
> >combined with their unpopularity at the high end,
>
> unpopularity?

To play. They're popular to have in groups, of course.


> >Paladins are sub-par. Mediocre tanks, poor healers, lousy dps. Great
> >survival skills and some nice group buffs. Hard to recommend.
>
> They are quite an impossible match in PvP, however. Way worse than
> shamans.

Hard as hell to kill, but not too good at killing other people.

- Damien
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 10:00:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Damien Neil" <neild-usenet4@misago.org> wrote in message
news:neild-usenet4-4989CF.02443428072005@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <ftWFe.3204$d02.609848@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>
> > Oh, and what's a good, less crowded RP server?
>
> There are no "less crowded" RP servers. :>

Is this because there are no low-pop servers, or because all of the RP
servers are low-pop?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 10:04:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Michael Vondung" <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rm3wefns21n$.1tfxdik5lxmdr$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:24:27 -0400, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> > I'm also thinking about making a second character, possibly on the
Alliance
> > side. The only class I really wanted to play was paladin, although
> > supposedly they get a lot of hate from other players, which isn't that
big a
> > concern I suppose but I like to be liked [grin].
>
> Undeads aren't the best choice if you want to be *liked*. :p  They are also
> overly popular.

Yeah, but I LIKE the undead race [grin] and so can put up with some dislike.

>
> > a hunter for soloing but the work involved in taming and keeping pets
happy
> > isn't really for me.
>
> Hmm, perhaps the Warlock isn't such a good choice, then. You'll need to
> collect soulstones and such, which I find slightly more annoying than
> having to feed your pet. Taming is very easy and fast.

Well, what I was worried about was the whole "get a pet, find the right food
for it (not hard, really) and then feed it to the right affection level, and
then keep feeding it because it loses it, and so on and so forth". If I
wanted to raise animals, I'd play Pokemon or raise grunties in .hack ...

I don't mind managing objects and aiming to kill with certain spells to get
soulstones, but don't really want to raise a pet ...

>
> > Any ideas on cool class/race combinations to try on
> > the Alliance side?
>
> You don't really like a lot of what the game has to offer in regard to
> classes and races, so your options are limited. Yóu could try a Dwarven
> Paladin or a Gnomish Mage, if you go with an Undead Warlock. Both of those
> start in Ironforge, which is "the" hub on the Alliance side.
>
> The game picks up at levels 20 and 40, so try not to split your time too
> much, if you don't know yet for how long you'll play.

It'll kind of be a blitz session for 14 days, but I've never gotten TO 20 in
any game except CoH, so we'll have to see [grin].
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 10:06:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thanks to all who replied. It looks like I'm going with an undead warlock
and a dwarven paladin. Now, to see if I'll have fun with the game [grin].
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 2:27:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I've played all classes except for warrior, although my main is just
lvl 38 (38,32,29,25,24,9 paladin I just started last night).
This is my recommendation: It really depends on what you want to do.
All classes are good, all can solo, all can group, all can raid. So
depending on what you want to do:
- PvP: If you really want PvP then Rogue, followed by maybe mage are
the best PvPers. Rogue and Mage are the best to me in this option.
- PvE Solo: Pet classes are the best soloers imho. Sure any class
can solo, but most classes have to run away when they're fighting
something 1 or 2 levels above and they get one or 2 adds. Pet classes
don't really care about this, in fact, they like it, more exp. Warlock
and Hunter are the best to me in this option.
- PvE Group: Healer classes are the most looked for groups. Also
warriors. So Priest and Warrior are great for full groups, and Druid,
shaman, paladin are good for small groups (as they are more versatile)

So, did I miss a class? As you can see, all classes are good for
something depending on what you want to do.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 29, 2005 4:10:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <E6nGe.5782$d02.819215@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "Damien Neil" <neild-usenet4@misago.org> wrote in message
> news:neild-usenet4-4989CF.02443428072005@news.newsguy.com...

> > There are no "less crowded" RP servers. :>
>
> Is this because there are no low-pop servers, or because all of the RP
> servers are low-pop?

All RP servers are high-population. (In the US, at least.)

- Damien
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 30, 2005 6:55:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <1122658029.480162.98510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wolfing1@yahoo.com says...

> - PvE Solo: Pet classes are the best soloers imho. Sure any class
> can solo, but most classes have to run away when they're fighting
> something 1 or 2 levels above and they get one or 2 adds. Pet classes
> don't really care about this, in fact, they like it, more exp. Warlock
> and Hunter are the best to me in this option.

Hunters are poor at melee. Believe me, you'll do plenty of running.

Still a fun solo class, though.

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 12:19:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Well, I tried it today ... and I don't regret having chosen the DAoC
expansion over it when it first came out.

I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring, but
even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to matter
a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
levelling up except for the enemies you face. And when I switched to the
dwarf, the missions were the same: kill x number of y and a number of b,
with a slight difference in HOW you did it but no real difference in what
you were doing. Even my level 6 character was getting missions to kill
things, and that was about it.

The only good thing about the game at lower levels was one mission, which
was to steal 10 pumpkins from the farmers. Since the fields were
"patrolled", this led to an interesting tactical consideration of killing
the guards around the closer pumpkins first and then taking them. And then
a rogue was stealthing in and showing no common courtesy (after I avoided
ones she was taking, she took two ones that I was aiming for and had cleared
the guards for). And even that was repetitive and dull.

I know that people will say "It gets better at higher levels", and that may
be true, but as a casual gamer I value my gaming time and if the low levels
aren't fun, then why should I choose that game over others that ARE more fun
at lower levels?

WoW doesn't have the alt choices of CoH and DAoC, doesn't have the missions
at low levels (especially a lack of instances at low levels which both CoH
and DAoC have) that are interesting enough to make running alts fun even if
it had the choices, and since I'm not really interested in PvP (and joined
an RP server) there seems to be little here that interests me. So if I want
another MMORPG, it seems like WoW isn't worth my money. I might as well
re-up in DAoC, which is much more fun, at least to me. At least I wouldn't
have to buy the software on top of everything [grin].

Or wait for a new one or CoV to come out, of course [grin]
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 4:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <VNUGe.6734$d02.1033194@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
> about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring, but
> even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
> quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
> much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to matter
> a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
> faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
> inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
> abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
> levelling up except for the enemies you face. And when I switched to the
> dwarf, the missions were the same: kill x number of y and a number of b,
> with a slight difference in HOW you did it but no real difference in what
> you were doing. Even my level 6 character was getting missions to kill
> things, and that was about it.

I'm curious: I've never played a MMORPG that had many quests that went
beyond "take the foozle to Fred", "kill X whoozits", or "collect Y
foozles from whoozits". What does DAoC do differently?

WoW does have character customization options, but they only start at
level 10. Depending on the class you play, they range from significant
to minor.

- Damien
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 7:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> once tried to test me with:

> Hunters are poor at melee. Believe me, you'll do plenty of running.
>
> Still a fun solo class, though.

Hunters are not poor at melee up to 43, I don't know about beyond that.
They get duel-weild, and they can weild swords axes or whatever. They do
not put out as much dps in melee as they can dish out with a good rifle or
bow, but they can definitely hold their own in melee situations against
mobs. Hunters get Raptor Strike which can dish out a lot of damage in
melee, not to mention aspect of monkey tied with the thing that gives you a
free attack when you dodge. They are no ROGUE, of course, but they
melee far better than the caster classes. When soloing, I typically will
use aimed shot to do the first blow, then pound the mob with various shots
until it closes to melee, and if the pet hasn't taken aggro by then I just
melee the mob until it dies. If the pet takes aggro then I will back off
and continue using the rifle.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 11:01:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Damien Neil" <neild-usenet4@misago.org> wrote in message
news:neild-usenet4-A934B9.00094431072005@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <VNUGe.6734$d02.1033194@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
> > about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring,
but
> > even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
> > quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
> > much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to
matter
> > a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
> > faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
> > inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
> > abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
> > levelling up except for the enemies you face. And when I switched to
the
> > dwarf, the missions were the same: kill x number of y and a number of b,
> > with a slight difference in HOW you did it but no real difference in
what
> > you were doing. Even my level 6 character was getting missions to kill
> > things, and that was about it.
>
> I'm curious: I've never played a MMORPG that had many quests that went
> beyond "take the foozle to Fred", "kill X whoozits", or "collect Y
> foozles from whoozits". What does DAoC do differently?

As an example, part of the new Hibernian starter quests (to give you your
basic armour and things) include a mission to get yourself turned into a
fairy-type creature so that you can meet with the leader of the fairies who
are trying to overrun your village and attack your faction. So you go, you
do it, and then she talks to you and gives you some sort of map or document,
which you take back to the trainer (and you eventually turn back to your
form). The next mission is a "give to" mission, but it involves using the
transportation options to do it, and there's more to do with that where all
the starting missions BUILD on each other. DAoC also had many more -- at
all levels -- missions which were "Go kill this specific character who is
doing some nasty things", which made it feel like more of a world.

In CoH, "kill X of Y" missions are fairly insignificant. You tend to get
more "Clear this warehouse of criminals" and stuff like that.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 5:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns96A3E7FA7E916knight37m@130.133.1.4>, knight37m@gmail.com
says...
> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> once tried to test me with:
>
> > Hunters are poor at melee. Believe me, you'll do plenty of running.
> >
> > Still a fun solo class, though.
>
> Hunters are not poor at melee up to 43, I don't know about beyond that.
> They get duel-weild, and they can weild swords axes or whatever. They do
> not put out as much dps in melee as they can dish out with a good rifle or
> bow, but they can definitely hold their own in melee situations against
> mobs. Hunters get Raptor Strike which can dish out a lot of damage in
> melee, not to mention aspect of monkey tied with the thing that gives you a
> free attack when you dodge. They are no ROGUE, of course, but they
> melee far better than the caster classes. When soloing, I typically will
> use aimed shot to do the first blow, then pound the mob with various shots
> until it closes to melee, and if the pet hasn't taken aggro by then I just
> melee the mob until it dies. If the pet takes aggro then I will back off
> and continue using the rifle.

I do the same, but if you get adds and the pet has problems it's easy
to be overrun. Maybe I'm just bad at it.

Also my hunter is my first character so I've been stuck with daggers so
far. (They seem more in keeping with the character anyhow.)

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 5:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <VNUGe.6734$d02.1033194@news20.bellglobal.com>,
allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca says...
> Well, I tried it today ... and I don't regret having chosen the DAoC
> expansion over it when it first came out.
>
> I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
> about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring, but
> even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
> quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
> much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to matter
> a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
> faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
> inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
> abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
> levelling up except for the enemies you face.

Surely you have to pick and choose the skills you buy at this level,
unless you have been really lucky with gold?

Besides, you are learning new abilities every second level and adding
them to your fighting repertoire.

- Gerry Quinn
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 5:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d56d7b160643c5498a386@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <VNUGe.6734$d02.1033194@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca says...
> > Well, I tried it today ... and I don't regret having chosen the DAoC
> > expansion over it when it first came out.
> >
> > I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
> > about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring,
but
> > even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
> > quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
> > much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to
matter
> > a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
> > faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
> > inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
> > abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
> > levelling up except for the enemies you face.
>
> Surely you have to pick and choose the skills you buy at this level,
> unless you have been really lucky with gold?

It hasn't mattered much to my warlock. It's generally been "get a level and
then at some time later go back and see if you are a high enough level to
get any interesting skills". There's no real reason to go level up (as far
as I can see) since there's no real trainer who does anything for you when
you do level up, unlike DAoC. And you don't have contacts like you have in
CoH to get missions that change at certain levels.

It just seems so much less significant than it does in other games. Maybe
that's something that people like, but to me it really takes me out of the
world and feeling like any sort of heroic character.

>
> Besides, you are learning new abilities every second level and adding
> them to your fighting repertoire.

Does this count for casting classes? Yeah, there are more abilities that I
can buy and they do tend to come up every second level, but that's basically
my point: they aren't really "inherent", since you won't be taking all of
them at that level anyway and so it's just a level restriction, not an
actual level reward. It's like getting a weapon that you can't use or buy
until a certain level, not a reward for making it to that level.

Or am I missing some inherent abilities?

To put it in perspective, when you level in DAoC you get a certain amount of
skill points that you can use to apply to any of the skills your character
can take. This tends to make you want to level up and feel like you got
something for doing it. WoW is all about money in the skills, and level
only counts as a restriction in taking the next skill. I think they should
have dropped the level restrictions and made it simply skill points + money
(possibly) and then that would have made it more like a reward for
levelling.

And CoH gives you a new power every second level, which makes you feel like
levelling means something. In WoW, it was WAY to easy to just forget or
ignore whether or not you'd levelled.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 11:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> writes:

> I do the same, but if you get adds and the pet has problems it's easy
> to be overrun. Maybe I'm just bad at it.

Using Aspect of the Mokey and the melee special attacks, a Hunter can
hold their own in melee. And switching between the aspects is fast.
July 31, 2005 11:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:19:06 -0400, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> dared speak in front of ME:

>Well, I tried it today ... and I don't regret having chosen the DAoC
>expansion over it when it first came out.
>
>I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
>about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring, but
>even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
>quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
>much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to matter
>a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
>faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
>inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
>abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
>levelling up except for the enemies you face.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
Meanwhile, I'm sick to death of games where 'levelling up' (and that
includes gearing up) is the only thing *to* care about.


--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 31, 2005 11:53:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <jadedgamer@hotmail.com> writes:

> Using Aspect of the Mokey and the melee special attacks, a Hunter can
> hold their own in melee. And switching between the aspects is fast.

Note: I am thinking mostly of Dwarf hunters here, with their nice
Stoneskin ability to soak the damage.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 1, 2005 1:59:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Kaos" <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:n8vqe1hu02h2pmupilini5h0q09tqv8q8m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:19:06 -0400, "Allan C Cybulskie"
> <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> dared speak in front of ME:
>
> >Well, I tried it today ... and I don't regret having chosen the DAoC
> >expansion over it when it first came out.
> >
> >I've only taken my undead warlock to level 6, and my dwarven paladin to
> >about level 2, but even to start the starting levels are mostly boring,
but
> >even worse you get NO sense that you are actually part of a world. The
> >quests are nice, but DAoC's starting character quests are much more fun,
> >much more involved, and much more interconnected. Levelling seems to
matter
> >a lot less in WoW than it does in other games, even if you seem to do it
> >faster (It only took me 2 - 2.5 hours to get to level 6) since you don't
> >inherently get any choices of skills out of that levelling (or powers or
> >abilities for that matter) and so there's no real reason to care about
> >levelling up except for the enemies you face.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> Meanwhile, I'm sick to death of games where 'levelling up' (and that
> includes gearing up) is the only thing *to* care about.

Yeah, I understand that some people might prefer it that way, but it goes a
bit too far in that direction for my tastes. If the missions were
interesting, then I wouldn't care, but I don't find the quests all that
interesting and don't even have "but it will get me a level" to fall back
on.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 1, 2005 11:14:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

To put it in perspective, when you level in DAoC you get a certain
amount of
skill points that you can use to apply to any of the skills your
character
can take. This tends to make you want to level up and feel like you
got
something for doing it. WoW is all about money in the skills, and
level
only counts as a restriction in taking the next skill. I think they
should
have dropped the level restrictions and made it simply skill points +
money
(possibly) and then that would have made it more like a reward for
levelling.

And CoH gives you a new power every second level, which makes you feel
like
levelling means something. In WoW, it was WAY to easy to just forget
or
ignore whether or not you'd levelled.
>>>
You are correct in all your statements. WoW is a simple game, based
basically in attaining better loot. Its huge success comes from that
fact. Just like Diablo did for RPGs back in the day, so WoW did for
MMORPGs, it made them simple, stupid.
To you, all that you mentioned about the quest may seem cool to you,
but to the majority of the players that like WoW, it's just considered
a 'time sink'. They'll just click on the 'blah blah blah' and skip to
the killing part.
It's sad, as I suspect all MMORPGs coming later (that are not already
too deep in development to change) will try to take a chunk from WoW by
making their MMORPG much simpler, stupid.
Just as an example, with my lvl 31 mage I was having an easy time
killing things even 1 or 2 levels above me, no problem with adds
either. Then I turned 32 and still had a bunch of quests to do in the
area, so instead of going to trainer, I kept killing the mobs and doing
the quests. I even went to a dungeon (Gnomeregan). Like halfway
through 32 I finally went back to my trainer, got all my spells (money
really isn't a problem in this game, I always have more than plenty to
buy all the spells at all levels). When I went to put my spells in the
action bar I realized something... I had forgotten to put the previous
level spells in there! So all this time, I was rocking the game and I
was only using the spells I got almost 3 levels before LOL. I even
read of someone who decided to play his paladin all the way through
armorless, he was lvl 15 when I read it :) 
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 1, 2005 6:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <y34He.293$pH4.15781@news20.bellglobal.com>,
allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca says...
> "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message

> > Besides, you are learning new abilities every second level and adding
> > them to your fighting repertoire.
>
> Does this count for casting classes? Yeah, there are more abilities that I
> can buy and they do tend to come up every second level, but that's basically
> my point: they aren't really "inherent", since you won't be taking all of
> them at that level anyway and so it's just a level restriction, not an
> actual level reward. It's like getting a weapon that you can't use or buy
> until a certain level, not a reward for making it to that level.
>
> Or am I missing some inherent abilities?

I know there were some I was looking forward to - that counts as a
reward.

> To put it in perspective, when you level in DAoC you get a certain amount of
> skill points that you can use to apply to any of the skills your character
> can take. This tends to make you want to level up and feel like you got
> something for doing it. WoW is all about money in the skills, and level
> only counts as a restriction in taking the next skill. I think they should
> have dropped the level restrictions and made it simply skill points + money
> (possibly) and then that would have made it more like a reward for
> levelling.

Well, you do get a talent point that allows some customisation.

- Gerry Quinn
!