#41
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#42
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#44
|
|||
|
OP needs to understand EQ was designed to be a social game with an amazing journey. Sure you can min/max it all the time and drive yourself mad. Believe me, I feel you in regards to efficiency 100%. But in the long run, you are in charge of your own choices, don't like the group ? leave it's that simple man. Find a couple of people to group with that share your mindset and go for it. Don't put yourself in a situation and stay there then bitch about it. Remember that social aspect of EQ ? /reputation.
| ||
|
#45
|
|||
|
Had a full banded ranger tank my Unrest group no problem
Kept threat off my twinked rogue Everyone left happy | ||
|
#46
|
||||
|
ree
Quote:
ahem...REEEEEEEE!!!! | |||
|
#47
|
||||
|
Quote:
But early on, as you know, they were terrible. But still, when we signed on each night there would be an extended group of 20-30 people who would all race to send us tells to get a spot for the group tonight. Makes no sense, right? Why would people want to play with not one of the worst character types but TWO? Reason was group always did well in loot and exp and (almost) never wiped. I was puller, if something went significantly wrong I would never bring the problem back to the group, I'd find a good /corpseable spot and stay there while the group evaced one way or another. There wouldn't even be much downtime, as my partner would take over pulling and tanking and she was very good. And everyone in that extended group ranged from good to really really good and would handle unexpected events very smoothly. My favorite moments were always when something unexpected happened and the group wouldn't make it through and go "whew!", everyone would do the exact right thing(s) and make it look easy. Pfft, mobs gotta try harder than THAT. So despite the lack of dps and the exp penalty, the lack of death and therefore constant upward progress always resulted in faster progress over time than that of people who min-maxed groups much more but died every other day. We had a good ranger friend we played with a lot too. Two pallies and a ranger in a party, my god. But he was really, really good at rangering and we always did really well with him and had a good time. Like Nirgon's case, everyone always left happy we'd had Dulsin in the group. Point being the difference between the "strongest" and "weakest" character types can be very much minimized or even erased if the person playing the weaker end takes the time to really study their capabilities and experiment with various tactics and just basically push themselves hard to maximize their value as a player through skillful and well thought-out execution. And again that's why we always focused on who we knew that was good much more than what character type they played when setting up groups. | |||
|
#48
|
||||
|
Quote:
The amount of awful inefficient groups I've seen on this server is impressive. It has nothing to do with class composition and everything to do with not knowing the basics of EQ. It also has to do with many players unwillingness to learn how to actually be efficient not "roll an efficient class." On Green anybody good on -any- class is welcome. When every knucklehead melee "rAiDeR" isn't running around with their DKP loot piņata gear you actually see that Wizards can be great in a group and they are quite welcome now. "rAiDeRs" never rolled a Necro because "tHeY cAnT gRoUp" and look now. It's tons of hot air and people with no clue. Just don't be a nub and that's that.
__________________
Sotir - Cleric
Xoquil - Wizard Kinigi - Ranger <The A-Team> | |||
|
#49
|
|||
|
OP are you masamune<Asgard>? Please say yes bc that would make two 2/10 threads instantly become 10/10
| ||
|
#50
|
|||
|
I would think a warrior with dual wield would be better dps than a SK, Pal and most casters if the Warrior was hasted and had str buff.
| ||
|
|
|