It's long... most of my stuff is. Caveat emptor. When I first decided to address this... ... issue, it was as a response to all the discussion about Lanet's (and to that end, if anybody out there has any experience on test and can give me an estimate on the new damage--or direct me to a thread that discusses the situation on test rather than speculation, PLEASE feel free). Incidentally, that's also why it's on this thread as opposed to elsewhere. Anyway... after having read it from the horse's (read: Moorgard's) mouth, everything I initially had to say has become rather a philosophical/mechanical discussion, rather than an actual inquiry. So. Before I start, let me just say, as biased as I am on the subject, this thread is NOT intended to be a plea for kiting--or Selo's, or anything else!!!--nor is it intended to be a flame against kiters, anti-kiters, quading, the devs, or any other thing under the sun. It's just talk. That's all. I'll say up front (and reiterate it many times) I liked kiting, but since the devs have come out and explicitly denounced it, although I don't like the rationale (and that will be a large part of the discussion), I can live with it. At least they were straightforward. Anyway. On to the subject at hand. We begin with: "Doesn’t the locked encounter system prevent kiting as well?At the core of our combat system is a significant principle: If you can damage a mob, that mob can damage you. Kiting as you knew it in EverQuest will not be a viable tactic in EQII." Most obviously, this begs the question, "Well... ... what about kiting as we didn't know it?" --probably not something the devs take seriously, but a valid question nonetheless. My perspective is that of a mid-fifties druid on EQdead, who kited the vast and overwhelming majority of his career. He grouped in his early twenties in the karanas (or whatever level it was... maybe four levels or so?), and then for a few levels in the 30's or 40's in the Dreadlands--I can't remember which exactly. It's been several years. Altogether, though, in around 55 levels, he grouped for experience to make up maybe six to eight of those levels, and that's a stretch. The rest was done solo, all the way from kiting Misty Storyswapper to quadding birds in the ocean near the end. The two solo strategies, for anyone out there who doesn't know, were kiting or rotting, the former being the faster under most circumstances. That, however, is not relevant to EQ2. Different game, different premises, end of discussion. It doesn't matter what druids or, more importantly, bards, did in EQ1. We're dealing with new animals now, and I'm with the devs on that one. I'm going to cite a few other games in a minute though, so let me ward off the flames now by prefacing them with the same statement: different games, doesn't matter. Anyway, here's the relevance, and the fundamental question: Is kiting, as a strategy--regardless of the game or circumstances--a viable strategy? (This is an easy answer--it's a rhetorical question, but I'm going somewhere with this.) The elements at work in the strategy in EQ1 are straightforward: character's movement speed, mob's movement speed, character's power/mana, mob's health. Nothing else matters. If you can control those elements efficiently, then you win. Next scenario: FFXI. Kiting didn't work. In fact, if I wanted to cite a catastrophic failure in the world of kiting afficionados, FFXI would be it. Not only were the first two elements completely unalterable, but the second two were so grossly unbalanced by the midgame that it was a moot point. A character of ANY job could burn up many, many bars of MP on a single mob (worth exp) and still get wiped. Next scenario: CoH. Kiting worked again. Sorta... But it didn't have that druid feel to it. Why? Because CoH curtailed kiting a different way: All mobs have ranged attacks. So then you have a new element in play: character's health. Because a dead kiter is... ... well... dead, so it doesn't really matter. I mention those to compare a few things in terms of marketing (and let's face it... the bottom line is the real motivator). People want to be able to solo. Not only that, but people want to be able to solo in such fashions that they feel that their methods are unique or special. When I was trying to decide on which of this generation's games to buy after being burned out on FFXI for the reasons stated (/cough "forced grouping"), I'll be honest--kiting was a question I asked. The devs aren't the only ones who care about strategy. Now in EQdead, what kiting amounted to, was that a class which wouldn't otherwise be able to solo, suddenly was able to--and very well--in the case of bards and high level, mana efficient druids--TOO well. My hat is off to the devs for trying to incorporate a degree of longevity for all classes when it comes to soloing. --not perfect, but better than nothing. And that certainly alleviates a lot of frustration--in my case it alleviates a game-breaker, in fact, and so I'm all the more grateful for the effort. (If I can't solo, I don't play--not that I have anything against grouping, but sometimes it's just not an option.) But the trouble is this: with the exception of one class (two subclasses) and possibly a handful of other subs, it looks to me that all classes, if and when they solo, do it precisely the same way. There are two--MAYBE three strategies to soloing in EQ2. In EQ1, there were, that I can think of, at least five. EQ2: Pets, rots, melee: Summoners function similarly to the way they did in EQ1. Necro pets have been toned down--arguably appropriately--but the principles remain the same. The pet acts as a root/DoT while the necro rots. Also, it may be possible for certain classes to rot the old-fashioned way. That is, put down a reliable root, stack your dots, and go make a sandwich. Aside from this, though, all classes must melee if they wish to solo. EQ1: Pets, rots, melee, kiting, reverse kiting: Necros can solo as above, although with much more efficiency. Druids specifically could rot. Later on shamans could as well, or more appropriately, in a fashion somewhere between necros and druids in terms of the pet vs. root. (Forgive me if I do any of you ex-shamans an injustice, I'm going on my best memory). Even other casters could function in these roles by means of charms or outright root-bombing. Druids and bards could kite, and one of my personal favorites--shadowknights could reverse kite. I bring up these comparisons to come to this conclusion: With the sole exception of bard quad-kiting, all of the EQ1 strategies were effective. Not only that, and more importantly to the devs, I think--they were challenging. When I got finished with a herd of birds with my druid, I felt like I'd been through one heck of a workout. I felt like I'd earned it. I didn't feel like I was exploiting my class's abilities--mainly because if you trip over something or miss a snare, or more frequently, run out of mana, you might as well put your head in the sand, 'cause you're goin' down. In EQdead, everybody knew that bards, necros, and druids had it pretty easy. Bards especially, toward the end. So the question becomes: At the point at which we can make it equally challenging/rewarding for a strategy to be used as a comparable strategy, isn't it a viable option? It seems to me that, in the case of necros, that's what's been done, with arguable effectiveness. The necro pets have been toned down, but the necro soloing model--sans lifetap--still works. All of the others, however, seem to fall apart. So here's my point (thought I was just rambling, didn't you?): Why is it necessary to adopt the principle: "If you can damage a mob, that mob can damage you."? To me, this seems like a peculiar sense of logic, given the elements of balance that have to be brought in to maintain it. Namely, if we put this statement more plainly, it says, "If you want to solo a mob, you must be able to tank that mob." I suspect, however--especially in light of the pet classes--that this is not the intention of the devs at all. Moreover, it would seem to me that, should the devs have desired to leave kiting in--for whatever reason, although the most obvious to me seems to be variety in strategic options--they could very easily have followed the examples I cited earlier, of FF and CoH (I cited them for a reason--you thought I didn't, didn't you? >) ). That is, by tightening the discrepancy between the ability of a single character's mana/power pool to sustain all of the elements of kiting (keeping the mob snared, keeping the character sped up, and nuking without running oom) and the mob's health, kiting could be made more difficult--BUT not eliminated. Secondly, by giving more mobs access to ranged attacks: then kiting still works, but the principle Moorgard presented still holds. Not only can the mobs hurt you, but they can hurt you precisely in the same fashion that you hurt them... well what's wrong with that? Ultimately, a marriage of these kinds of ideas could lead to some--I think, anyway--very ingenious methods. --two-man kiting teams, for example (it's been done before, just not out of necessity), or the ability to kite a mob for a little while and then engaging it in order to survive the encounter. For a prime example of this, just look at a soloing sorcerer (where possible). In a technical sense, a sorcerer who solos kites on every single (depending on his/her choice of openers) pull. You show me a sorcerer who doesn't pull from max range, and I'll show you one who isn't paying attention to his capabilities. Why do you cast from max range? To get that second or third (yeah, right) spell off before the mob gets into melee. Until the mob gets to you, you're hurting it--and indeed, it can't hurt you back... not a drop. If anyone remembers eldritches in DAOC, that was an entire school of methodology. You had a class that could nuke a mob DEAD before it got to him--and if he messed up, and it arrived... well, he died. That simple. --fun class too. So wrapping up (hurray!), this is what I'm getting at: At this point, it looks like kiting as a methodology is dead. I don't like it--I think the fact that EQ created it (albeit implicitly) and other people took the model and modified it, and now EQ is killing it--is a little depressing, but as I said before, I can live. What remains, though, is this: We need new strategy. Solo strategy. I look at the druid board, the bard board, the SK board, and I see the same strategy: use your buffs, pull the mob, spam your HO's, spam your utilities, hope you live. only the ability names have been changed, and some character's can heal whereas others just have high HP/AC. We can do better. I'm not asking for kiting to be resurrected by any means. --I'd be happy if they did, but from a realistic standpoint, if you look at the organization of aggroing and grouped mobs in Antonica and the Commonlands right now--even if it was possible to kite, it would be WAY too hazardous. What I AM asking for is intricate, complex strategies for the soloer. I would have never thought of kiting before I knew it existed. It took time to master, and when you finally got it down, you felt a sense of accomplishment at having learned something about your character's abilities--kind of like mastering twisting, or--right now, like being able to get that extra flanking attack in mid-combat. Kiting evolved as a strategy because the tools were in place for it. and right now, I'm not seeing many new tools. Dirges look like they might be setup to be able to reverse kite... but I'm doubtful of that too (anybody know/has it been discussed?). But even so--it's time for something new. Right now I count three possible strategies for the soloer in EQ2. There should be more. many more, in fact. So what if the mob can't hurt you? He can hurt you if you run out of power and he catches you--and if you're out of power you're a sitting duck anyway. Is it more challenging to solo by tanking than to solo by kiting (assuming you can do either/both)? I don't think so. --under some circumstances, yes, of course. But generally no. You die when certain things go wrong--and it's always that way, no matter what those things are or what options are available to you. Do I have any suggestions as to what the son of kiting should be? Well, no... I've got the complete list of abilities to date, and nothing on the list looks like it could set anything up more complicated than an HO or a scout's stabbing string. But we have expansions coming... and if I could get anything across to the devs before they get here, that would be it. If kiting's dead, that's fine. --but give us an heir. I want to look at someone in the Commonlands and know that he/she's a certain class--because only that class can do what he/she's doing. Right now we're a little shaky in that area. Or am I wrong? Anyway... Just my opinion, and I talk too much. 's all for now. D.
As far as the "rotting" technique, I started a Gnome Mage today and on the IoR alone, I was able to "rot" several group mobs that conned white or higher. Even two at a time (three was pushing the power bar and usually got me killed) was a snap. 1. Arcane Bindings to pull the 2nd mob while rooting the first.. 2. Arcane Bindings to root the 2nd mob 3. Static Pulse - HO - LB - LB 4. Repeat 3 (Repeat 1 & 2 when necessary or after every 2nd round of #3) So far, in 2 hrs, I made 20s at level 5 (and a ding to 6) doing the Gnolls at the last camp, dropping chests about every 5th kill. I'm not sure how the technique will have to change post-IoR, but it's a testament to the fact that "kiting" can exist in EQ2. With my 18 scout, running backwards and Singing Shot does wonders. Especially with Pathfinder running. Sure, I still get hit a little, but not nearly as much as going toe-to-toe. My arrows stink though, so it's not a totally viable soloing method.
the root spells (for enchanters atleast) have a very long cast time post 30, so you'r unfortunately likely to get eaten once root breaks.
First off, there is some misinformation in your post. Not sure if you've just forgotten a lot about EQ1 or are unaware of it. For one, I don't know of any bards that 'quad-kited' except on accident. It was AoE-kiting and then Swarm-kiting. Limiting it to just four mobs would have been silly. When I AoE-kited between 18 and (29? whenever the first charm was gained) I usually tried to round up 10-12 mobs. And with charm, same deal really, the more mobs the better. Secondly, you mentioned SK's reverse kiting like they were the only ones to do so. Actually, Necros were the most known for it since it was a far more effective form of soloing than 'rotting' as you called it. And, of course, rangers and bards could use this strategy as well (though with bards it was irrelevent since they had better strategies. I just used it to increase my weapon skills.) Shamans used agro kiting which you neglected to mention. While bards were -- by far -- the best xp soloers in the game (would probably get about twice the xp flow as a quad kiting druid or wizard) shaman were probably the best soloers in terms of what they could kill (with the exception of enchanters who, under the right circumstances, could do some amazing things). Aggro kiting being get aggro and run around getting free dmg on the mob with your pet. Those are a few corrections, but lets get on to the meat of the discussion. The primary question that should be asked is why does EQ2 (along with DAoC and some other games) want to kill off kiting? Well, considering classes like the bard could make far better xp soloing than they ever could grouping it should be pretty easy to answer. Solo experience just shouldn't be greater than group experience else why group? Secondly, while a bard AoE-kiting or Swarm-kiting might be in a little danger, any druid or wizard kiting should have absolutely no danger to them. Lets face it, kiting was extremely easy. It didnt' really take that much time to master unless you wanted to kill something that was so far ahead of you that you would have to med while kiting to kill it. (And then you are talking about being able to count to 5 -- 1,2,3,4,5 is not a lot of skill). So, you have big time experience with little to no danger. While I don't consider soloing in EQ2 (or any game) to be that hard or danger-filled anyways, at least there is the occassional encounter where all the rolls go wrong and you have to take off or be slaughtered. Any druid/wizard worth their salt in EQ1 would never be in danger while kiting. And bard solo-kiting would never be in danger either. Now, I agree with your sentiment. I think EQ2 has watered-down strategies. I crave a class like the Bard in EQ1 or -- a better example I think -- the minstrel in DAoC that have a lot of choices and have a larger skill-cap (meaning, the more skillful you are the more effective you are. Most classes in mmorpg's have a very low skill cap. Its just not hard to play a cleric, magician, wizard, etc.) I call the minstrel a better example because they were much more in balance with the other classes but still had the ability to choose from many different tactics. One disappointment I have with EQ2 is that -- outside of group HO's -- it seems to be a watered down mmorpg in terms of combat and items. As you said, combat is pretty straight forward with little choice in tactics. In this regard, it is not really much different from other mmorpgs -- lets face it, they are all pretty simplified in terms of the amount of skill it takes or tactics brought to the table. HO's are a nice addition but that is about it. And items, well, they seem pretty umm plain jane. I remember being excited about getting new weaposn in EQ1 because it really did boost power, but here an orange weapon will do the same basic damage as a blue weapon. Wow, a few more resists, neato. I've long thought that all classes should be modeled after the minstrel in DAoC as for the number of tactics/strategies available to them. I do think EQ2 went the exact opposite direction with it. It does seem that you are locked into only a couple of strategies and those are based on class, so really, you do about the same thing fight after fight. I don't really see much changing in this regard, though.
Don't forget Druids and quad kiting. I quad kited Ulthorks and Walruses in EW in the early / mid thirties and early forties. Then at about 48, moved on to Wyverns in CS until 52. After that, it was back to rotting, mostly in PoD / PoN, until finally at 57 moved up to PoS. At 60, it was PoV.
Really? Given the limited number of spells in EQ1, you wouldn't have thought to snare, nuke, run, nuke, run till monster is dead? I'm not trying to mock you too much here, but do you honestly feel that soloing in EQ1 is more challenging that EQ2? A chimp could solo in either game. The biggest difference in soloing between the two games to me is the following: 1.) EQ1 only certain classes have any real solo potential. Warriors and Rogues were particularly screwed. EQ2 all classes have approximately the same soloing potential. Granted there isn't the variety of soloing methods as EQ1, but at least there is some semblance of balance in this regard. 2.) Experience. EQ1 it was generally as good if not better exp to solo as it was to group. Groups got an exp bonus, but it didn't make up for the fact soloers didn't split the exp between x number of players. EQ2 after about lvl 15 soloing is pretty much horrible exp. Monsters are specifically flagged as 'solo'. Different drop tables, different exp. 3.) Loot. EQ1 most zones don't have trivial loot code, so players could solo non-exp mobs for rare loots flooding market. In general, it was kinda difficult to fight level appropriate encounters for nice equipable upgrades. Cash loot was pretty easy to solo though. EQ2 solo loot is pretty horrible. There are some pretty decent quests that can be done solo for nice upgrades, but the monsters themselves don't drop much worth having. 4.) Buffs and Locked Encounters. EQ1 buffs lasted a pretty long time and casters didn't need to be in a group to cast them. This allowed for fast leveling through lower levels in 'god-mode' and considerably easier exping soloing. EQ2 encounters are locked, so no outside help and buffs only work on group members. Overall, it seems obvious that the EQ2 devs strongly encourage grouping as a means to advance through the game. I disagree with your points about EQ1 having challenging/rewarding solo encounters. The exception being chanter charming. That was pretty high risk at times. Overall, it basically amounted to casting a couple spells in sequence same as EQ2. I agree that it would be nice to have a little more variety in combat, but I'd rather maintain balance then introduce a bunch of game breaking abilities.
"Don't forget Druids and quad kiting. I quad kited Ulthorks and Walruses in EW in the early / mid thirties and early forties. Then at about 48, moved on to Wyverns in CS until 52. After that, it was back to rotting, mostly in PoD / PoN, until finally at 57 moved up to PoS. At 60, it was PoV." That was already covered in the original post. I was speaking specifically to reverse kiting -- which druids could do as well if I recall but wasn't a major tactic used by them.
I tested out the mechanics post patch (for warping etc,) on grey mobs. Between using the 26 fear effect, root effect, a bow and the DD / AoE and Lanets it is now possible to do sometihng that we shouldn't be able to do...... I think it will also work on solo mobs, which we can kill anyways easily enough, though I doubt it will work on group non-greys due to lack of power -(didn't try a I was too impatient to find out about how the provisioning fix went :smileysad Of course if anyone does discover that they can do that thing we aint suppoed to do then I'm sure they will bug report it. Well atleast I will :smileyvery-happy:
I come from the kiting world in eqlive, before I retired I almost made it to 70 as a necromancer, 250ish AA, PoTime/Ikkinz gear. I have to say we had it the best. Something goes wrong, well just FD. If you could manage your spell gems well, and got the 9th slot from AA, FD AA, heck you even had room to memorize Levant(5 sec Evac to safe spot in zone). As a necromancer who solo'd a lot, I certainly DID feel a huge accomplishment when I was able to kill things that it generally took a group to do. The first big thing I killed was the cliff golems at the OT outpost(though you couldn't kite him; he summons ). I got KOS by hunting too much in howling stones one night so I said screw faction ;p At any rate, that was a big deal to me. Then you think to yourself "Well.. I can kill that, what else can I kill?" and we move on to bigger and better things. At the peak of my career, I was soloing stuff in the instanced Gates of Discord zones because PoFire tables were way mega camped always. It was exhilirating trying to get those things dead, because one screw up and you are toast. A "chimp" certainly could not kite everything. If you are doing old world stuff, then perhaps, but those dont even pose a threat. Fact is, it did take strategy and skill. (Kiting in PoWater was particularly intense ) At any rate, I agree with alot said here. I think it would be nice to be able to accomplish something while using unconventional means, skill, strategy. So far as a dirge, I really like timing it right so I get Cheap Shot off to stun, then move into a flank position and hit them before the stun wears off. Its hard to time right, but certainly requires more skill than just clicking your HO starter and then compleating it over and over again. I agree though, we shouldn't have to "tank" a mob in order to be able to kill it. Looking at the dirge spell line up (I'm only lvl 21 atm ) it seems with our stuff, we have the potential to be a bit unorthodox at how we kill things, and I look forward to trying out all I can, and I look forward to what sorts of skills they will add in the future to enhance how we do this.
aye, i think with some changes that happened, and some mechanics that were in before. We could kite. However I mobs regen is quite good, and power regen even with our song is slow in battle. I don't think I'd have the power to kite a hard mob with just certain songs, and alot of dps from melee arts and possibly HO would be missing. Against an easier mob, I can solo them toe to toe anyway getting use use alot more of my skills and I'd kill them quicker and then prolly regen quicker than if i was still running around trying to kite the mob, risking adds and probably being bored. So I'm not sure the anti-kiters need worry that much, however I'm pretty sure there will be some people trying it, and getting other players attention, so I'm not expecting certain mechanics to stay as they are =/ as has been proved in the past its usually the stupid few that ruin spells for others.
Yeah, as i mentioned on that other thread, fear kiting is certainly possible (and has been -- but more so with Lanets fixed) but it really isn't worth it. It takes much more power to kill a white-yellow-orange solo mob by fear kiting it than it does to just melee it and your downtime as a dirge is mainly dependent upon power -- you should end most fights with solo mobs with fine health -- so it actually decreases xp over time. As for group level mobs, I haven't tried the lower greens yet but I don't think we have the power to take them down. There are still some green group mobs I can take at lvl 32 simply because they can't hit me but overall doing green group mobs isn't that great of xp anyways. I'd rather go to EL or Zek and take out solo mobs with a LFG tag on. As for the remarks about kiting -- a chimp could do it with a necromancer, druid, wizard, etc. That is not to say that you can't take it to a new level. I remember fear kiting with my necro over in one of those Kunark zones where I'd end up with 3-4 mobs that I was cycling fear through and dancing around during fights. But its pretty easy to line up just single mobs and fear kite them without much thought or skill. I think fear-kiting was actually overrated back then anyways. This was back when if you didn't outdamage your pet he took half the xp. My mage actually solo'd faster than my necromancer even though he had a lot of downtime because he always outdamaged his pets and he killed so much faster. But as for an awesome duo, I used to group my mage with a necro and we'd kill extremely fast fear kiting with no downtime -- especially when we both go backstabbing pets. Mages's pets were just so much better than necro pets that putting them together made an awesome pair.
I can solo the brigand's in RV assuming I don't mess up, the 2nd one is a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] to kill while waiting for power to regen haha. Tried the rats too, could only get them halfway before I was outta power and near dead.
I tend to agree with the OP. Combat in EQ2 is so mindless that I have to make myself keep playing the game and hoping it will get better. Standing toe to toe with a mob and trading hits is not strategy nor does it keep me entertained. At least in EQ1 when I was kiting, I had to be there and move around and target. It was interactive. In EQ2 I press a few buttons and rarely move. Not much fun. A lot of things in EQ2 got so dumbed down that it took the fun right out of it. Sadly, there are probably many people who feel as I do, but since we enjoyed the EQ1 experience at some point, we strive and hope and keep paying for a game we grow to hate more every day.
Let me start by saying that you can kite in EQ2. I have done so however it does take a little bit more IMHO then some of the other games I have seen. I did not play EQ1 other then a few times at my friend’s house. I don't know about kiting for several levels on several different mobs but what I do know is that the first time I played I had a 5 minutes explain of the controls and then in 10 minutes I was kiting things to kill. Let’s face facts I am not trying to start a fight but the methods used such as the root, DOT or kiting are for all purposes very simple. Now I don't know if a trained chimp can do it but I know a 7 year old boy can do it. I mean I would love to have more strategy in the game but when it comes to soloing there just isn't enough styles. However I have noted in EQ2 you can play around a lot more with Group tactics. The two things I think of like this is I don't care if I can't solo mostly or not, I didn't join a MULTI-player game to play by myself around other people. If I wanted to do that I would get a game boy and sit on the subway. When I can’t find a group I tradeskill (solo your heart out) Now I know that not everyone is like that which is cool as well. However every MMORPG that I have played or seen or read about really didn't have much option for strategy in the solo fights. It's not like this is WarCraft or one of the other strategy based games. However some classes are capable of kiting in EQ2, however it isn't quite the same.
No flavour, generic, dull combat.... did i mention generic? I miss the options i had as a bard or necro in eq1. Necro: not just fear kiting you know, pet tanking and slowing undead is another option, charming an undead mob another, root rotting.... the skill came when things went wrong or you got adds or 2 adds, sure any monkey can fear kite when it all goes to plan but im pretty sure a monkey couldnt regain control of a fight when your charmed undead mob breaks mid fight and you have 2 angry rotting guys (one of them buffed with your pet haste) beating you up...anyway necros had so many options.. and now in eq2 they can... pet tank and pray they dont get agro too early, wooo fun. People are saying that EQ1 late game soloing abilities were game breaking? how? if other people are grouped and going to group if you can solo effectively or not how are they affected? its not like you can raid solo, its not like you can obtain godly items solo, just exp... I dont get it?
