Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
exdruid: can you tell me how you can set up anyting but solo at 1 to 10?, don't tell me partner or group though, something else that make the game different from EQlive, not just mob/zone
|
So you don't want me to say solo, and grouping isn't allowed. With those options cut out the most you can do is stay at the character select screen.
Also, it bears mentioning that with the exception of Mages, Necros, and Druids, soloing 1-10 is not an efficient activity. In today's Live world full of twinks and babysitters it is, but it sure wasn't like that before.
As for ways to encourage different types of play at early levels, you could simply rewrite the spell db for early levels to make all the classes more interdependant. This would be doomed to failure though, as there only six types of spells. You could also retool the mobs to require groups and then put a huge exp bonus for grouping. This would be defeated by a low (or spread-out) number of players.
As I've said before, picking an arbitrary level does nothing. It just becomes the new starting level. Taking it all from Live (which seems to be the basis of this whole debate) I could say that Shamen have definitely not come into their own yet at 30. Therefore the minimum level needs to be 34 (all effective pre-50s core spells obtained.) Wizards only really shine post-50, so we'll need to up the minimum level to that. What about disciplines? How uber is too uber? What would be done to combat the massive riches gained by selling off the new 'newbie' equipment and deleting the character? What happens for the higher level encounters when you NEED a cleric and one is not online?
In the end, your scenario still contains flaws in class balance (due to the starting level and low player count), economy, and equipment distribution. Not surprisingly, by basing your world on EQ Live's rules, you've taken on all it's major flaws.