Currently running: SK, Druid, Enc, Cleric with 2 x Wizard mercs. What would I benefit most from in adding a 5th and 6th? Initial thoughts: 5th: Bard, 6th: Wizard ? I know a lot of people love Mages, but I haven't given it much thought.
I 4-box. Setup is Mage, shaman, ranger (main) and bard with a healer merc and wiz merc. I have no issues. Mage pet can tank anything with the right EM gear.
I box Warrior, Monk, Bard, Cleric, Berserker, Mage. I've tried to replace mage, but that Group CoH has me strung out... Conq
You don't think the ADPS and utility from the Bard would be worth it? I would go multiples of the same class, but I don't really want more than one. I see a lot of people going 4 mages, 2 wizards, etc.. mostly to see what they can accomplish, what I'm doing is simply leveling up and tinkering about.
My philosophy is that every class archetype is highly capable at doing what it is meant to do, so since you already have the basic tank and healer, and you even already have ADPS, then the choices I'd give myself are: Stack on more DPS that complements the ADPS to kill stuff faster Add classes that I'd enjoy playing if I were to play them on their own, because boxing can get tiring Those two are not necessarily exclusive either. Not really a strong answer to your question, because what makes a bard, or any class, "worth it" is really up to your play style. For me, I feel an enchanter and a bard are redundant when it comes to ADPS--when adding a character, a DPS class will be stronger than an ADPS. Of course here you are weighing that decision with the bard's utility. I guess I would just give you the warning that once you box a bard, you might not want to ever get rid of it the run speed, the instant live and undead invis, the tracking, etc.
Yeah, as I said above I want to avoid using multiples of one class. Your point is well-taken, however, that a Mage would add a lot. I'm reluctant to use one because it seems like a complex addition, but perhaps I'm overthinking it.
Hi! I have limited myself to 4-boxing, and my starter group is BST-MAG-BRD-RNG. I feel you would benefit most and even enjoy a mage. The pet is simple and effective. You get mod rods, malo, CtoH and pet toys. Multibind spell casts or multi cast macros are a simple setup. Also, if you never ever want to run out of mana again, beastlord+bard provides absurd sustainability, as well as hefty physical adps (which is limited help due to your group's caster-heavy setup). It also takes a bit more work to position these characters for meleeing. You could always bard+mage and have a whole heck of a lot of nuking in your group. You could bard+ranger for some headshottery and additional attack boosts.
I 6 box SK/Wiz/Rng/Clr/Enc/Bst Since you have a druid for ports I wouldn't add Wiz, go either shaman or bst for the buffs and a ranger. ranger is the easiest macro DPS bot in game so it takes zero effort, and your only missing melee buffs, Shaman has the best hands down, but bst has mana regen and decent pet. I dont use software, I have a macro for the Rng/Clr/Enc/Wiz/Bst for all single pulls, and only break that when its a multi pull for mezzes. Mage is solid choice, paired with a Bst you'd have another use for that awesome pet gear. Bards are OK again mana regen and over haste or resist bonus is nice too. When I play with bud, I drop wiz and Bst for his bard and mage. Bst becomes out of grp buffer. It is a solid grp, but we lack ports/evacs, but we have GH portal now on Lockjaw so it works. End of day you have a solid base grp, anything you add will only help, I started 3 boxing with rng/clr/enc. My grp grew out of lack of people to grp with outside my play time with friends.
Mages are no more complicated to box than any other caster. In fact all of the pure casters are identical for a standard two button press with exception to wizard who does not have use the pet attack line. Where they are going to differ is in their individual group utility and how you want to macro these things in or utilize things. The bigger question you might want to ask is will adding any class out perform your mercs? If you can safely say yes I think replacing a wizard merc with a real wizard and mage would be a good fit. As stated above they are both identical in terms of standard macros with exception to pet attack. Macro 1: assist, pet attack, what ever very fast reuse AA's you want to plug in macro 2: spell casting Your other macros will be your burns which I would not "save" for named but rather try to keep them in rotation at all times if possible to maximize your dps (one of the pro tips I have learned from some of the best players here on the forums).
Wizards are much easier to blindly mash a multibind key, two if you want to optimize a little better, three if you're feeling really focused and on your toes that day. Depends how your mana is doing. I find I can multibind all my most expensive nukes nonstop for at least 45 minutes with an enchanter in the group constantly firing off gracious gift of mana and casting psychic appropriation. (This in addition to gift of hazy thoughts are why I feel enchanters should also aim for a DPS role nowadays when there's no need for crowd control--their DPS is ADPS too.) The cast and recast times and the effects of magician spells don't work out so perfectly in that regard, especially when you want to get their synergy working on their own best spell.
I added a mage, and it outperforms the Wizard merc by far, so that was an easy decision. Now I have to decide if I want to drop the safe cleric merc in favor of another DPS (Druid and Cleric is more than enough healing, but I can get lazy at times).
2 questions.... 1. Why not just play 3 boxes and use mercs 2. Why are you playing a MMO? Seriously... just single box and talk to people. It's what made EQ great in the first place.
There are plenty of great reasons to box an MMO, and single boxing and talking to people being what made EQ great in the first place is not a great reason to single box and talk to people.
OK, give me some good reasons to box in a MMO (Other than playing on Brekt and there not actually being any other players). The point of a MMO (note the middle M) is to play with other people, not to sit talking to yourself in a group made up of just you. Trust me... soloing, be it 1 box or 6 boxes is boring as hell. Try a full group, it's so much more fun.
I don't get all negativity about Bards. They are incredible but really need a full group to get the most out of them. They lean pretty heavily toward the melee side of things, but casters and healers still get benefit from having them in group. There is a reason raiders LOVE Bards.... There are several reasons I box: My boxes support my main character. I always have a group no matter what time of day it is or how many guildies are on. I can fit into any group profile. A wide assortment of classes allows me to jump into any group I want. Group, ready anywhere. If myself and some guildies want to run a mission or simply grind, I can drop/add characters to suit the group makeup. No one needs to wait. I can learn about other classes to increase my effectiveness in any situation. Instant DPS/Buffs where ever I go. My boxes can DPS outside the group, allowing PUG members or guildies reap some of the benefits of my box team. Challenge. Finding new tweaks or synergies to increase my team's capability is incredibly rewarding.
Sure, man. Well, these are reasons I personally like to box in EQ: It tires me very quickly to interact with others. I don't know if it's social anxiety or introversion, but I feel exhausted after prolonged interaction I can make my own expectations and meet them. I also don't have to stress about meeting other people's expectations I like consistency, and playing with the same people (myself) lends to that I like the independence. I can rely on myself, and if I fail, I don't have anyone to blame but myself I am impatient I like to take breaks and do other stuff while playing, and I don't want to burden others with the inconvenience of waiting for me. I also don't want the inconvenience of waiting for other people who want to take breaks No overhead costs from communication. When every character in the group needs to react, it's all me, and I trust my own reaction time All the loot is mine! More generally, there's less chance of me putting in effort and not being rewarded due to bad luck with /random. My RL stuff doesn't afford me time to mess around with that, especially if I have some loot as a specific goal. And I like being rewarded I enjoy seeing how the classes interact with each other, so I like being able to have full control of it I know you're emphasizing the "multiplayer" part of the MMO initialism, but that's far from exclusive. I'd argue that the "multiplayer" part is a description of the platform, and while that does lend itself to a lot of the gameplay (like raids), it is not a requirement for any one person to play the game, especially at this stage in the game's life and with what computers are capable of now. You don't need to interact with other people to do everything--for example, trade skills--and it would suck if it did exclude them all since the game is so huge and has so much to see and do. So, you know, why limit that and stifle fun? I'd say EQ first and foremost is a game meant for fun before it's an MMO. Genre names are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. And besides, how exact can they possibly get? Just like music and fiction.
