EQ2 Solves the Healer Problem?

[SirBruce]

When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.

That is a complete exaggeration.

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.

This is simply false.  Perhaps that's true of the race(s) you were playing, but of my race, it was not.  And I never even reached level 20.

There are several games out there more solo friendly than WoW, and more in development. AC2, CoH, and EQ II

OK, you go ahead and keep thinking that.

I will, because it is true.  The question is why you keep thinking what you think, despite evidence to the contrary.

Bruce

[Ardent]

And I never even reached level 20.

Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.

[schild]

And I never even reached level 20.

Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.

First of all, Ardent - keep trolling to bash EQ2, it's clever. Really.

Break NDA again and you get banned. K? Go to the Vault or B.net forums - they would eat your shit right up. I just won't have it here.

Also, If you are going to break NDA, make it worthwhile. You might as well criticize actual problems with the game instead of making loose comparisons to WoW in areas that don't even correlate given the class structure of the two games.

[Ardent]

Schild,

I was trying to answer the question posed in the thread title, but it is difficult to do so without treading across the NDA line. If I went too far, I'm sorry, and I'll stop.

I was trying to make a point about healer classes and soloability, and I should have just stuck to games like WoW and CoH to get my opinion across.

This thread in itself is NDA bait. I'll spit out the worm.

[Unei]

We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare...

Untrue.  Clerics are the most popular class in EQ.

http://www.eqrankings.com/

[Kairos]

Please do a search on the boards.  The subject has come up before and I've explained it before.  MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone.

That's a nice sentiment and all, but it really doesn't work out that way. Movies and plays and concerts and sporting events are all passive forms of entertainment. Video games require active participation from the players. The game experience simply isn't going to be the same whether you're playing by yourself or with other people, no matter how hard to try to make it that way.

I personally hate grouping with people I don't already know, so my MMOG playing is restricted to soloing and grouping with any of my friends who happen to be playing as well. Even so, I don't go around saying that everything should be tailored exactly for my antisocial playing style. MMOGs really are meant to be played with other people, and I for one am pleased when I can get away with experiencing as much of the content as is possible in WoW by myself. To make the game much more solo friendly would be to make an online single-player game, and what the hell is the point of that?

[jpark]

We know that in EQ that while clerics were rare...

Untrue.  Clerics are the most popular class in EQ.

http://www.eqrankings.com/

I think your position confuses me.   In EQ clerics remain one of the classes in greatest demand - imo - which if you agree does not fit the statistic you are referring to above.

My bud who left EQ the same time I did - a cleric himself - to this day a year later receives emails from the number one guild on that server begging him to come back a cleric - they are so hard to come by.  hehe even now - they have him botted and are flagging him - since he has refused to spend time to flag himself.  They are flagging him in the hopes he will return.

When I look at the link there is no adjustment for level.  I have no doubt folks may have toyed with the idea of heal bots - but did the ever advance the character or spend real time playing it?

Are you seriously saying that clerics are not in demand in EQ?  Or have I misunderstood the use of the statistic you are citing?

[Merusk]

And I never even reached level 20.

Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.

First of all, Ardent - keep trolling to bash EQ2, it's clever. Really.

Break NDA again and you get banned. K? Go to the Vault or B.net forums - they would eat your shit right up. I just won't have it here.

Also, If you are going to break NDA, make it worthwhile. You might as well criticize actual problems with the game instead of making loose comparisons to WoW in areas that don't even correlate given the class structure of the two games.

He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.

  He never said he was in the beta, or gave anything approcing non-public information, no need to go all apeshit.

Back on topic:  

Clerics are popular, yes.  Everyone and their brother has a cleric bot on a second or third account because they suck to play but are great to have around for rezzes or bot heals. (And yes, second and third accounts are now more common than people with single accounts.  The single-accounters have almost all quit in my experience.)  But since they're bots, that means they're secondary characters.. and folks aren't going to sit at their machines playing "hit the CH chain button.. NOW" on raids for a secondary character.

The mechanics of high-end raids in EQ have gotten to the point that you need x of class y to accomplish something.  Multiple extra tanks to 'tank mezz' un-mezzable boss guards.  Multiple extra enchanters to mezz the non-slowable boss guards.  Healers for the mezz tanks as well as the CH chain.  Backups for the MT, mezz tanks, enchanters, etc.  Clerics are the least fun of these classes because they're the most passive, as mentioned previously.

 So the demand at the high end is for people willing to sit there and do just that, on a character that can't fight on it's own at any other time, and by and large can be replaced by more diverse characters in XP groups.
Clerics were in demand for GoD for a while, since they do the best 'burst' healing, and all those mobs were tuned for level 70 characters. Since OOW has come out and increased the level cap again they'll probably be replaced by utility healers like druids and shaman again.

In addition, the number of raids at the near high-end are so numerous there's a lot of pressure for the small amount of clerics to be on almost every day. I knew of a few guilds that had mandatory (if you were online) raids at least 4 days a week.  That leads to even quicker burnout on this small player pool.

Because of this you'll probably see the primary players of them decrease in number yet again, and even more effort will be made by the high-end guild.

This is something I think EQ2 has done well to resolve. The smaller raid sizes means fewer numbers of required classes.  You'll not likely to ever have something as ridiculous as needing 6 mezzers, 8 tanks and 5 healers, because whoops you only have 5 'free' slots for actual damage dealers now.

   In addition,  IF they do it right you won't have a shortage of healers because of the archtype model.   This is something I'm really wanting to see in action.  It's a damn good idea, but I wonder if they can provide enough varieity between the different 'flavors' of classes while balancing them so they all can maintain their primary roles without anyone excelling.

[schild]

He never said he was in the beta, or gave anything approcing non-public information, no need to go all apeshit.

As to neither confirm nor deny what you're saying - I'll just say this, step out of this little tiff, it's not one where you can make so much as a single point. :) Without further ado, carry on the speculative EQ2 issues.

[Alkiera]

As far as the soloability of CoH...
You need a group to do all of the task force missions, including the ones which let you respec your powers and enhancement slots.

They are adding missions which require a group, as there are apparently more than one thing which needs to be done simultaneously within the mission instance.

There are also 'trials', like Hamidon, etc, which require large groups.

If you think EQ2 is going to let you see more content solo than WoW...  *boggle*  Admittedly, I am not in EQ2 beta.  Still... I can't imagine they'll make the game THAT solo-centric.

--
Alkiera

[SirBruce]

And I never even reached level 20.

Heehee! OK, I see what I'm dealing with now. No point in continuing this.

No point in continuing this, since I proved your statement wrong?

So what's your explanation now; that it's AFTER level 20 that the Elite quests become less common?

Six months from now, I will be curious to hear your opinions of trying to solo with a WoW priest, druid or shaman as compared to a EQ2 priest class. Should be a fun read.

I don't think you'll be curious at all.  I think you'll just want to backpedal again when you hear an answer you don't like.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Please do a search on the boards.  The subject has come up before and I've explained it before.  MMOGs should be like movie theatres or plays or concerts or sporting events... you can be entertained by them whether you go with a group of friends or if you go alone.

That's a nice sentiment and all, but it really doesn't work out that way. Movies and plays and concerts and sporting events are all passive forms of entertainment. Video games require active participation from the players. The game experience simply isn't going to be the same whether you're playing by yourself or with other people, no matter how hard to try to make it that way.

The average person would claim that playing video games is a lot more passive than many other activities, and would rank it just above, say, TV viewing for its couch-potatoeness.

However, your argument about participation is a red herring.  So what if true?  Why does this necessitate, therefore, grouping to access content?  You do a subtle switch on the argument by retermining it "the game experience".  But that's not in dispute.  I'm not denying that the experience of seeing a NFL game by yourself is different from seeing an NFL game with a group of your drunken buds.  But the CONTENT of the game is the same.  The players are the same and we see the same game.  To complete the analogy, in a MMOG if I go with my group of buddies, we should all see the same content, not access a different game we couldn't see before when we were by ourselves.

To make the game much more solo friendly would be to make an online single-player game, and what the hell is the point of that?

Because there's more forms of interacting with massive amounts of other people besides having them in your group and having to have them in your group in order to access content.  I want all those OTHER forms of interacting (except PvP, usually); I just don't want forced grouping in my RPG.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

As far as the soloability of CoH...
You need a group to do all of the task force missions, including the ones which let you respec your powers and enhancement slots.

They are adding missions which require a group, as there are apparently more than one thing which needs to be done simultaneously within the mission instance.

There are also 'trials', like Hamidon, etc, which require large groups.

Yes.  Didn't I alrady say these things, when I admitted CoH wasn't perfect?

Nevertheless, this isn't a black-and-white thing.  On the spectrum of soloability, CoH is pretty far on the solo-friendly end, as opposed to, say, EQ1 which is pretty far on the other.

If you think EQ2 is going to let you see more content solo than WoW...  *boggle*  Admittedly, I am not in EQ2 beta.  Still... I can't imagine they'll make the game THAT solo-centric.

I don't think it will be solo-centric, but I think it will be less GROUP-CENTRIC than WoW will be.

Obviously, time will tell.  If it turns out EQ2 sucks for soloability as much as WoW did, then I'll just have to play Tabula Rasa or who knows what else.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.

But how do you come to that conclusion, when SOE has specifically said not so, that every class will be viable to solo, that they're making content for soloers, and that  they will have everything available for groups available for soloist?  Not to mention the fact that EQ2 is specifically designed to be much of what EQ1 is not, that since EQ1 is highly group-centric, don't you conclude therefore that EQ2 probably will not be?

Anyway, the point isn't to laud EQ2 over WoW; maybe it will suck too.  The point was that WoW wasn't solo-friendly, and that other MMOGs are more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think EQ2 is one of those, but only time will tell.

Bruce

[Sable Blaze]

I'd expect soloability in EQ2 to be equivalent to what we've seen in EQOA. There's some, and some classes do it better than others, but don't count on hanging out in significant dungeons by your lonesome.

There were many things in EQOA I could do by myself (as a dark elven shadowknight), but many more I could not. Any dungeon was a huge risk. The numbers of mobs and the extremely fast respawn pretty much insured a group effort to accomplish anything.

It's a pretty good bet EQ2 will be similar.

[SirBruce]

Again, what is the basis for your belief of a "pretty good bet"?  EQOA?  That doesn't seem to outweigh the developers own statements which contradict that conclusion.

I'm not trying to get anyone to break NDA here.  And again, I'm not claiming EQ2 will be perfect.  But better solo play than WoW?  Shore 'nuff.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Whatever developers say, always turns out to be true. We all know that.

[Ardent]

Bruce,

I am not going to argue with your opinion of soloability in WoW, or any other game. That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. If a game does not provide the game experience you want, you don't have to play it. I don't have a problem with that.

The reason I "backed down" is because you made a false statement. I tried to correct that statement, and you called me a liar. I can't compete with that kind of illogical thought process.

You said:

When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.

Please provide a list of the quests you did between levels 1-20. There are websites you can go to that list all the quests by zone, this should be an easy task.

Then, place a mark by the ones that were elite.

If the ones that are maked elite in this list equal 20% of that list, I will say you are right and I am wrong.

But that's not going to happen, and anyone who has played WoW for more than week knows I'm right.

So please stop insulting me and backing up your arguments with lies. Thank you.

[SirBruce]

You said:

When I was playing the stress test beta, about 20% of my quests were elite, and over half of those required grouping to accomplish at the assigned level.

Please provide a list of the quests you did between levels 1-20. There are websites you can go to that list all the quests by zone, this should be an easy task.

Then, place a mark by the ones that were elite.

If the ones that are maked elite in this list equal 20% of that list, I will say you are right and I am wrong.

Actually, no.  I only have to show that ONE of them was elite to show that you were wrong.  Let's review what you said:

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.

Now, I assume you at least admit now that you were wrong when you said that?

[Edited]

Okay, I found the web site with the quest list (thotbot) but it doesn't show which are elite and which aren't.  Sorry.  It lists about 24 quests up to level 20 involved Elwynn Forest, and a few of those I recall were Elite.  Several more were Elite in Westfall, including the three quests involving the Mine where VanCleef is.  Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.

Bruce

[Merusk]

He was starting that in the future he wanted to hear Bruce back-up the implication that EQ2 would be more solo-friendly than WoW in the way Bruce has defined 'solo friendly.'  He could have made that statement without being in the Beta of anything.

Hell, I drew the same conclusions -that EQ2 would be less 'solo friendly'-just from reading the EQ2 public boards.  EQ is a group-centric game. EQ2 is going to be a group-centric game with some soloability. There's nothing mystical or secret about that.  They're annoucing the reasons grouping doesn't suck in eq2 vs eqlive on a regular basis to support that notion.  It's not a bash, or a dig, it's an opinion based on the available information.

But how do you come to that conclusion, when SOE has specifically said not so, that every class will be viable to solo, that they're making content for soloers, and that  they will have everything available for groups available for soloist?  Not to mention the fact that EQ2 is specifically designed to be much of what EQ1 is not, that since EQ1 is highly group-centric, don't you conclude therefore that EQ2 probably will not be?

Anyway, the point isn't to laud EQ2 over WoW; maybe it will suck too.  The point was that WoW wasn't solo-friendly, and that other MMOGs are more solo-friendly than WoW.  I think EQ2 is one of those, but only time will tell.

Now which definition of solo are we using, Bruce? The one where you can access all content on your own without ever having to group? That's not what the SOE designers meant when they said every class will be able to solo.

 What they meant was every class will be able to kill things for experience, and possibly loot (but not the best loot), without having to group.  This is being done in Eq2 in answer to the complaint in EQ1 that only a few classes  could kill things without others to support them after a certain level. (Warriors & Clerics being the most notable examples.) I think this is the definition the rest of us have been using when we speak of 'soloing.'  

Yeah, I'm sure they'll have solo content for quests, but so does WoW.  I don't think it's going to net you the best stuff, the same as WoW. And there WILL be some stuff that you can't do alone.  Dragons and raid instances, for example. Raids in EQ2 start as early as your teens, according to their FAQ.
Now, maybe if you level beyond a certain point you can go back and do those instances solo. I don't think that's what you were talking about, though is it, Bruce, since you could do the same in WoW.

I also say EQ2 is still group oriented because they're doing stuff to encourage groups very strongly.  Xp from mobs killed is the same solo as in a group. Xp debit will be 'spread out' among group members if you die.  A death in eq2 means you get 1/6 the xp debit you'd otherwise take. Couple that with the first one and grouping is far, far better than soloing in terms of xp gain, and therefore leveling.

 None of the above is true in WoW, meaning doing things on your own is mostly preferred for XP. You don't get 1/2 to 1/6 the xp from a mob kill, and a death in a group is the same as a death alone. The difference being that a death alone is because YOU screwed up, not because someone else was asleep at the wheel.

I'm not down on EQ2, though A lot of people are because it's SOE, and SOE is "The Man."  I do know what 'Everquest' is, and nothing about it really screams 'Soloers paradise' for attaining Max level. (Again, the definition I think most of us mean when we say 'soloability') Sure, you'll be able to do it but it will take you forever and a day.  

EQ2 is being designed to remedy the problems people said they had with EQ1, and provide an Everquest experience to more casual players. The 'Everquest' experience is widely understood to be levels, loot & raids with character power dependent on equipment.  In EQ the best equipment comes from raid-type encounters which are all group-only experiences.

Yeah, sure, 'this isn't eq1'. It IS using the Everquest name, though, so some things are going to remain the same.  If nothing remained the same between EQ1, EQ:oa and EQ2 then they wouldn't all be called 'Everquest.' since that carries some additional, unplesant baggage. We're talking branding here though, so it's not just about the setting.

The ways I see EQ2 not being EQ1 isn't in radical difference in mechanics of levels, loot, etc.  It's in the gameplay and leveling mechanics itself.  SOE learned in EQ1 what people will bitch about in an MMO.  They, above all other companies producing upcoming MMOs, have the data to provide a treadmill that satisfies enough to not promote the widespread bitching.


EQ1 problem: People get antsy if there's too-long between dings.

EQ2 solution:  I said years ago they'd be better off splitting the XP & power achieved in each level in half and just calling it a 100 level game. I suspect EQ2 has done this.  Yeah this is pure speculation, but without seeing the whole game it'd be hard to know.  I expect the treadmill is the same length as eq1's original 50 levels, you just get rewarded more often.


EQ1 problem:  Complaints that each level doesn't provide anything beyond HPs.

EQ2 solution: It's been hinted here and elsewhere that you get more than this at each level in eq2.  EQ1 crapped out for melee characters at about level 30, after that nothing.  If they're smart they'll have incorporated some of the AA stuff as well as the usual powers for melee.  Spellcasters it's easy enough to spread 12 spells out over 6 levels instead of the traditional D&D "at level x+6 you get 12 new spells!" that EQ1 had.


Eq1 problem:  If I group, I lose experience. Soloing is preferred to grouping in terms of min/maxing your Xp rate. Killing higher level mobs doesn't fix this, since the mobs you'd have to kill would be far, far too powerful. (Though killing hordes of mid-blues in a good group was far superior to solo xp because the rate of kills made up for it.  The problem was keeping that optimal group together for a good length of time.)

EQ2 solution: Killing a mob solo gets you the same xp as killing it in a group. If the xp were balanced around solo xp gain rates, this would be great! I'll be willing to bet XP will be balanced around group gain rates, though.


Eq1 problem: Corpse runs suck. They do. A lot. The possibility of losing all your loot is horrible. So bad that even EQ1 has done away with it now.

Eq2 solution: Spawn with your items, lose some XP & stats are decreased for 3 days if you don't want to run back to your place of death.

That's just the tip of some of the changes, though.  But none of them change the core mechanics of what is 'Everquest.'  Levels, loot & raids with character power tied to equipment, and the best equipment is from raids.

[SirBruce]

Now which definition of solo are we using, Bruce? The one where you can access all content on your own without ever having to group?

That's one end of the spectrum, yes.  The other end would be, of course, only group content.  The question is not whether EQ2 lies all the way at the solo end -- it does not -- but whether or not it's closer to the solo end than WoW.

 That's not what the SOE designers meant when they said every class will be able to solo.

 What they meant was every class will be able to kill things for experience, and possibly loot (but not the best loot), without having to group.  This is being done in Eq2 in answer to the complaint in EQ1 that only a few classes  could kill things without others to support them after a certain level. (Warriors & Clerics being the most notable examples.) I think this is the definition the rest of us have been using when we speak of 'soloing.'  

That's "part" of "soloing", but it's not the entire definition.  But yes, SOE saying such things tells you that EQ2 is moving towards that end of the spectrum.  "Killing things" counts as content.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll have solo content for quests, but so does WoW.  I don't think it's going to net you the best stuff, the same as WoW. And there WILL be some stuff that you can't do alone.

Again, no one is arguing that there won't be some group content.  The issue is how much group content relative to WoW, and how solo-friendly relative to WoW.

I also say EQ2 is still group oriented because they're doing stuff to encourage groups very strongly.

WoW is also encouraging groups very strongly.  Again, the question is how much one is encouraging it relative to the other, and relative to other MMOGs out there.

I'm not down on EQ2, though A lot of people are because it's SOE, and SOE is "The Man."  I do know what 'Everquest' is, and nothing about it really screams 'Soloers paradise' for attaining Max level. (Again, the definition I think most of us mean when we say 'soloability') Sure, you'll be able to do it but it will take you forever and a day.

Again, you completely miss the point of the debate.  "Soloers paradise" is not at issue.  Is WoW a "Soloers paradise"?  No.  Which is closer?  EQ II.

EQ2 is being designed to remedy the problems people said they had with EQ1, and provide an Everquest experience to more casual players.

And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.

The 'Everquest' experience is widely understood to be levels, loot & raids with character power dependent on equipment.  In EQ the best equipment comes from raid-type encounters which are all group-only experiences.

That's the 'EverQuest 1' experience.  In EQ2, they are remeding specifically those things which made EQ1 popular, to appeal to those who aren't playing EQ1.  So you're actually arguing my case.

Yeah, sure, 'this isn't eq1'. It IS using the Everquest name, though, so some things are going to remain the same.  If nothing remained the same between EQ1, EQ:oa and EQ2 then they wouldn't all be called 'Everquest.' since that carries some additional, unplesant baggage. We're talking branding here though, so it's not just about the setting.

Branding has nothing to do with mechanics.  By this logic, UX:O was going to be a lot like UO... but it wasn't.  And they specifically said it wasn't, in the same way EQ2 has been specifically said not to be the same as EQ1.

[Speculation about EQ2 vs. EQ1 mechanics deleted, as they are not relevant and are without foundation.]

That's just the tip of some of the changes, though.  But none of them change the core mechanics of what is 'Everquest.'  Levels, loot & raids with character power tied to equipment, and the best equipment is from raids.

And none of those are about soloability per se except raids.  EQ II is less raid-centric, more solo-friendly.

Bruce

[El Gallo]

I think your position confuses me.   In EQ clerics remain one of the classes in greatest demand - imo - which if you agree does not fit the statistic you are referring to above.

These two propositions:
1.  Clerics are the most played class
2.  Guilds are desperate for more clerics

don't contradict one another.   Your could have triple the number of clerics that you do of any other class in your guild, and the most effective way to increase the power of your guild would still be "add more clerics."

[Nebu]

My guess is that there are so many clerics due to people having multiple accounts.  This is also the case in DAoC.  People have clerics for when they want to do small scale stuff, but few people actively play a cleric as their main character.  I played a cleric for 2 years in EQ and I always could find groups if I wanted them.  When I played, my best friend was an enchanter... the two of us could hunt just about anywhere and pickup the remaining team quite easily.  

I chalk up the high number of clerics to extra accounts with the majority not playing them very often.

[Ardent]

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of them will be elite.

Now, I assume you at least admit now that you were wrong when you said that?

This statement is still correct ... for Horde characters.

Elwynn Forest is the only area of the game I haven't played in, because I never play human characters (I play a human every day in real life, why would I want to play one in a game?)

So ... I am willing to amend my statement to be more accurate:

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of the elite quests are required. Elite quests from 1-20 are rare (nowhere NEAR 20% of your total quest count) and a hardcore soloer could easily skip them and do the dozens of alternate quests available, and come back and do the elite quest solo when he has achieved the sufficient level.

Post 20+, elite quests become more prevalent, and yes, encourages forced grouping.

Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.

Nobody playing WoW is only doing 1 quest per level.

And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.

And EQ2 isn't?

(And before anyone freaks out at that last question, it is being posed in the spirit that the SEQUEL to a game is likely to be similar to the original game, I am making no judgements, casting no aspersions, and revealing nothing that approaches an NDA breakage. Anyone reading the EQ2 marketing materials on the SOE website can easily assume that EQ2 is very similar to EQ1, with dramatically improved graphics and tweaked game mechanics.)

[SirBruce]

So ... I am willing to amend my statement to be more accurate:

From levels 1-20, you will probably do close to 100 quests, and exactly zero (0) of the elite quests are required. Elite quests from 1-20 are rare (nowhere NEAR 20% of your total quest count) and a hardcore soloer could easily skip them and do the dozens of alternate quests available, and come back and do the elite quest solo when he has achieved the sufficient level.

Er, no, your amended statement doesn't at all reflect what you said about about Human quests being different, and it's still incorrect.  By the same logic, NO quests at all are required to play the game.  But that is not only silly, but it completely misses the point of the discussion, which is about accessible content.

Post 20+, elite quests become more prevalent, and yes, encourages forced grouping.

Thank you.  So we agree now, WoW is not solo-friendly, and some 20% of human quests up to level 20 are elite quests, many of which pretty much require groups at the levels they are given.

Again, about 20 quests, and 3-4 that are Elite... that's about 20%.

Nobody playing WoW is only doing 1 quest per level.

That's per area.  Up to level 20 you'll probably primarily focus on questing in, what, 6 different areas/zones?

And WoW has been largely described as being a copy of EQ1.

And EQ2 isn't?

No, it isn't.  That's exactly what people have been trying to tell you, but aparrently you aren't listening.

Anyone reading the EQ2 marketing materials on the SOE website can easily assume that EQ2 is very similar to EQ1, with dramatically improved graphics and tweaked game mechanics.)

You're completely wrong.  If you read the marketing materials, the only conclusion to draw is that EQ2 is very dissimilar to EQ1, with very different game mechanics.

Bruce

[Ardent]

You like to argue about games you haven't played much or haven't played at all. This isn't adding anything to my life, and it's just annoying everyone reading this, so truce Bruce (hey, that rhymed!).

You'll probably follow that up with some smarmy comment about me backing down, which is fine. Life goes on. I'm beginning to think that the reason you like soloing so much is that nobody wants to group with you.

As for all your conjecture about EQ2:

If you're playing EQ2, you're breaking NDA.

If you're not playing EQ2, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't know how you can be so adamant about how the game works.

Now I'm going to go practice piano, which I find relaxing.

[SirBruce]

I don't have to play WoW much to discern how solo-friendly it is.  I played it for a week, I relayed my findings.  You claimed those results were not true, and then later retracted your statement, at least partially.  The remainder of your objections are unfounded, and your comparisons to EQ2 fail to be verified by EQ2's own public information; no NDA-breaking required.

So, we agree that WoW isn't solo-friendly.

We disagree if EQ2 is more solo-friendly than WoW, but when we debated this, I had facts from WoW and EQ2 to support my position, whereas you had falsehoods.

That about sums it up.  Enjoy your piano; I'm going to go back to playing Fable.

Bruce

[MrHat]

I don't have to play WoW much to discern how solo-friendly it is.  I played it for a week, I relayed my findings.  You claimed those results were not true, and then later retracted your statement, at least partially.  The remainder of your objections are unfounded, and your comparisons to EQ2 fail to be verified by EQ2's own public information; no NDA-breaking required.
Bruce

How can Ardent tell us which games to like...

...when he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?

[jpark]

Because I enjoy the power of a healing class if EQ2 has "solved" the healer problem - WoW has not imo.

I gather the Priest remains unrivaled in his healing ability in WoW.  If so, he might enjoy the same position clerics did in EQ, and perhaps unlike EQ2 - great political power.

That's my conundrum.  Time and time again the easiest - casual player friendly path to power for me has been a healer.  WoW looks vulnerable to this strategy - but EQ2 may not be.

[Murgos]

So someone register a gimmick account and spill the beans on EQ2 already.  I've never seen this community so uptight over an NDA before.  Generally, people around here are all to eager to dish or cheer the next big thing.

[Ardent]

How can Ardent tell us which games to like...

...when he doesn't even know where he stands on the issues?

First, I voted in FAVOR of the war in Azeroth, now I'm telling you the war in Azeroth was a mistake? Can we afford to have a flip flopper like Ardent with his finger on the button?? Think of the children!

Soloed my tauren shaman from level 19 to 22 tonight, no sweat. A really fun healer/hybrid class. But the female tauren models are just laughably ugly.

[Margalis]

I didn't see anything about HOW EQ2 is solo friendly, other than "the devs say it is."

The only piece of actual info you guys managed to produce on this page is that WoW XP is split for groups and EQ2 isn't, which clearly is a point in favor of WoW. There was NO point in favor of EQ2, as far as I could tell.

Solo-ability really is about XP more than anything else. You can solo in any game, as long as you are willing to put up with a much much slower advancement rate. If the XP largely favors groups, the game is not solo friendly - the end.

[AOFanboi]

If you're playing EQ2, you're breaking NDA.

If you're not playing EQ2, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't know how you can be so adamant about how the game works.

Well, that's the catch-22 isn't it? Only people not in the EQ2 beta can discuss the EQ2 beta in public, and have to trust the published information  to be correct, or make assumptions based on SOE's blotchy history.

In fact, you cannot be in the EQ2 beta either, because you seem to be discussing EQ2 in a public forum. How are you not just as much in "a position of ignorance" as SirBruce? Why should we trust your statements more than his?

[Soukyan]

Meh. Myst IV is out now and is far more intriguing than any of the lame, upcoming MMOGs. ;)

[El Gallo]

For powergamers: in WoW, the fastest way to level 1-60 is probably to solo.  Maybe duo.  That might change, but right now, the self-sufficiency of each class and the lack of any real group xp bonus means that grouping pretty much only slows you down.  The only advantage of grouping is access to better gear in the harder dungeons.  However, you pick up all the gear you need to solo while soloing.  Even if you want to have l33t gear at the end of the line, the best path is probably to solo to 60 and then hit the second-to-last dungeon to gear up for the last one, rather than gearing up in every dungeon along the progression path.  Which is sad in a way, because the dungeons are for the most part well done.  But they are hard and not on the efficient path to th echeese, so they'll probably be ghost towns.

Once you hit the level cap, it's a different game.  If you want to be the uber raider, you'll probably have to join a guild and, well, raid.  If you want to follow the PvP path, you will probably need a guild of some sort too.  As a max-level solo player (who has farmed all the soloable content) you are probably looking at alts, the life of a trader, or the solo PK I guess.