EverQuest Sidekicks - Sorta

[jpark]

hehe

"Share the magic, excitement and fun of EverQuest with a friend! For a limited time only, Sony Online Entertainment will offer active EverQuest players of mid-level characters the opportunity to invite a friend and share the EverQuest Experience. You're getting one FREE "Buddy" Key, good for a 30-Day trial of EverQuest, to give to a friend. Now, you and your friend can experience together the Number 1 Massively Multiplayer Online RPG. "

They also talk about new high level soloable content.  Wtf?  This is EQ!

See City of Heroes offered sidekicking for free.  SOE has topped this and charged for it, and offered something less elegant.

This is beyond bad -it's just tacky.

[geldonyetich]

Doesn't sound like sidekicking so much as a player enacted "Bring A Friend" campaign.   It's like a 14 day free trial, except it's a 30 day free trial that can be offered to you by another EQ player.

Since no level boosting occurs, "You and your friend can experience together" is better read, "you and your friend can experience apart".

[Anonymous]

Whatever vapid pit of stupid you spawned from, could you please return there?  Immediately, if not sooner?

I mean, do you even KNOW what sidekicking is?  Or are you taking another misinformed dig at EQ, hoping it'll confer coolness on your pointy head?

[geldonyetich]

Is it just me, or has the hate suffered an unusually high resurgence today?   Must be the heat.

[Rasix]

Hate is a function of stupidity.  I'd say it raises proportionally to the amount of mind numbingly stupid crap that's sometimes said here.

Really, we don't have to coddle the morons.  We can kick, prod, and slap them.  They need it.

I mean common; he started the post with "hehe".

[AOFanboi]

Bah, cheapskates. Related to AO's third "birthday" recently, Funcom sent us THREE 30-day trial keys to give out.

But agreed, it has exactly zilch to do with sidekicking.

[Numtini]

I'm pretty sure those AO codes are full game codes. No puchase necessary and 30 days, just like you bought the Shadowlands box.

[Alluvian]

Yeah, but AO has always been more desperate and apologetic than EQ, hehe.

AO would be strongsad "I'll give you a lollipop if you join my game, I am really sorry about the bad stuff before, please join my game." while EQ would be strongbad "You don't like our game?  Tough!  You are too stupid to like our game... CRAP FOR BRAINS!  AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

I will end my horrible analogy there.

[Sky]

Since no level boosting occurs, "You and your friend can experience together" is better read, "you and your friend can experience apart".

Exactly. "You can annoy your friend by making him roll an alt to play whenever you're around!"

[Anonymous]

How far behind can the program "powerup to level x, for $y per level!" be?

[HaemishM]

When population drops below 250k, they will enact that program.

As for soloable high-level content, SOE has been tossing out suggestions that they will enact solo and duo LDoN type encounters.

[Sky]

Pay $500 and we'll give you a level 65 character with all the top end loot, then immediately cancel the game for you so you don't have to endure the crappy gameplay!

[Alkiera]

As for soloable high-level content, SOE has been tossing out suggestions that they will enact solo and duo LDoN type encounters.

Which is curious, given the number of character types that can solo more than one mob in half an hour post-50 or so is a pretty small list...  wizards, druids, enchanters, mages, cleric to a lesser extent, shaman...

But a good deal of that depends on equipment.  The melee classes are even MORE dependent on specific equipment for being able to solo deep green cons, never mind anything of useful level.

Now, as owner of a 65 enchanter, solo-set LDoN runs would be very cool.

[Alluvian]

As a 58 ranger, my solo LDON would have to be filled with things around or below 30th level for me to actually be able to mow through them and complete a task.  Which means no exp whatsoever and just some adventure points towards gear.  Duo with a cleric I can do far more, but nothing that hits harder than the yard trash in nightmare.  That is about the limit of my tanking ability even with a cleric.

[Sable Blaze]

As a 65th level VT/elemental shadowknight I could solo in EQ. Not terribly hard really, depending on the zone. The question is why you'd want to? I mean, it's boooooooooorrrinnnnnnng.

Yes, I could kill blues in Droga all day. Yay <yawn>. I could aggro-kite in Tier3 if I REALLY wanted to. Even more dull, and annoying to boot.

The whole game post-20 was meant to keep you away from soloing. Now they want you to solo? Sounds like the game is going to get even more muddled and unbalanced than it is now (and that IS saying something).

Glad I quit.

[El Gallo]

Pretty much anyone can solo at 65 in EQ except warriors and rogues.  Some are more efficient at it than others, of course.  It is probably too slow for clerics and paladins to do it realistically, but everyone else I can think of is OK at it.

[Alluvian]

Yeah, a ranger can solo if they have endless quiver, a good bow, and archery mastery 3.  But it is mindlessly dull bow kiting things, and impossible to do indoors sometimes.  Plus snared moving or rooted mobs don't give you the double damage modifier making it take FOREVER.

[El Gallo]

I didn't say it would be fun :)  Soloing is boring for almost everyone.  My main class' (shaman) solo scene at 65 is find somewhere where there are non-summoning, easily single pullable mobs and root - dot - dot - dot - root - dot - dot- dot - root - dot - zzzzz...

I don't know that rangers solo that slowly, especially considering that rangers have much easier access to good weapons than anyone else (which is a big bonus for the casual ranger vs the casual "anyone else that uses a weapon").  It's way slower than group xp of course, but that is true for just about everyone these days.  Except bards and maybe charmers.  Even necros cannot keep up with good groups.

[jpark]

I apologize for the way I started this thread - it was sloppy.  

I mis read the EQ notice.  I thought they were referring to the opportunity to buy a mid level character allowing friends new to EQ to come to group with people that are already well developed in the game (e.g. get a level 35 character so you can group with your bud who may be level 50).

I let my expectations leap to my mind - I have been expecting SOE to start offering fees for getting a character at a given level.

[Alluvian]

access to weapons does the solo ranger little good.  They are still a chain class which means they can't take damage.  Even with the same or more ac than a warrior or paladin or sk they take WAY more damage per hit and never get that many hp.  So the only time soloing a ranger can use weapons is on 'animals' so they can use their puny duration fear animal and chain cast it.  The number of things in the 'animal' classification at those levels is pretty small.

[ajax34i]

I apologize for the way I started this thread - it was sloppy.  

I mis read the EQ notice.  I thought they were referring to the opportunity to buy a mid level character allowing friends new to EQ to come to group with people that are already well developed in the game (e.g. get a level 35 character so you can group with your bud who may be level 50).

I let my expectations leap to my mind - I have been expecting SOE to start offering fees for getting a character at a given level.

Even if they do that, it still wouldn't be "sidekicking".  Sidekicking is giving any player the ability to type in a command and instantly raise your level to his level, so you can group together.  Then when you're done, you're back to newbie.

What they're doing is a buddy program, advertising for more people.  The option to buy level 35 characters would still be advertising.

[Sable Blaze]

Actually, there's very little difference in the off plate classes and the chain classes. Rangers in Time+ typically have 9k hps and 2k AC. That's only marginally less than paladins and shadowknights. Rangers at his level of the game can go toe-to-toe with Tier2 mobs and win every time.

So, you say, that's at a very high level of the game. Yes, it is. It's all about itemization and it's one of the things that's making such a hash out of EQ. A 65th lvl bazaar equipped shadowknight isnt' even in the same universe as a 65th lvl Time or Ikinz equipped shadowknight.

Again, it's not really about levels. It's about AA and itemization. Just being 65 really doesn't mean very much in EQ. Getting 65 is just the start of a long hard road to the high end content.

[Alkiera]

Again, it's not really about levels. It's about AA and itemization. Just being 65 really doesn't mean very much in EQ.

Well, yes and no.  Yes, in that there is a VAST difference between 65 sk in bronze armor with a combine longsword, and a 65 SK in elemental planes+ gear.  The differences in hitpoints, AC, damage output and damage taken are insane.

On the other hand, while not quite as big a deal as in CoH, levels are important in EQ, they make Huge differences in agro generated, melee hit/miss rates, spell casting hit/resist rates, and the rate at which you resist spells.  (200 Fire Resist on a 65 character is far more effective than on a 55 character).  One of my disappointments with CoH is the overwhelming importance of level.  In EQ, things 6 levels over the group were not unreasonable targets, if you took them one at a time, or maybe 2 with crowd control.  Melee and spells only had a marginally more difficult time hitting than against an even con mob.  Mobs lower than you gave exp for a long time, and continued to be a reasonable challenge.  In CoH that level range is more like +/-2.  

That said, you might note that the things which items raise and the things which get better as a function of level are almost completely unrelated in EQ.  Thus there are two games... the whack a foozle gain a level game, and the item collection game; both are inputs to the character power equation.

--
Alkiera

[Sable Blaze]

Well, the con level curve is very steep in games like CoH and DAoC, whereas it's not a particularily big deal in EQ. Although, cons mean very little in the raid game of EQ. A white con VT boss or a red con PoP boss will kill you just as dead just as quickly. Then there's GoD with bosses with simply insane DPS and practically no hit points. If you don't get one-rounded, you win. If you do get one-rounded, well...it's a wipe.

Like I said, there's very little rhyme or reason for things being as they are in EQ. It's such a hacked together kludge anymore that even the devs can barely deal with it.

My main point is there's a whole new game once you get to 65th level. Just being 65 is a requirement, but there's far more to do once you're there.

[Sky]

My problem with endgame EQ is that I loved UO. UO had a kickass endgame, but it was entirely player-driven. /WE/ made the taverns, /WE/ made the militia, /WE/ provided the enemies.

But most people got into the endgame after their characters were maxed out. It's pretty much a total and complete impossibility for me to ever 'finish' a character in EQ, since character advancement and foozle collection are the only things you can really do in that game.

If you haven't noticed by now, I don't think developing characters makes for a very fun game, I like to have an actual game to compel me to develop a character for.

I get annoyed every time a game tacks on more of a grind for me to endure, and EQ is absolutely insane in that regard, even disregarding the effect of foozles on characters.

It's funny that my friend the eqholic has to delete his character to stay out of EQ, he says I have great willpower to not go back and play. All I have to do is spend 30 seconds thinking about the game and that's all the willpower I need. It's like having the willpower to not stick my nuts in a vise and crank it down.

[Tebonas]

I My main class' (shaman) solo scene at 65 is find somewhere where there are non-summoning

Pussy!

Thats how Necros and Druids that have a Shaman Alt solo. As a former Shaman I deny all knowledge of such unmanly soloing methods.