LFG

In my opinion, "hard" shouldn't be so hard that only 3 to 4 guilds gamewide can kill a raid mob.

I think "hard" should be the level where at least the #1 guild on most servers can beat the mob.

I'm curious about what others think.

__________________

"Bottom line: we're not all being honest with ourselves here." Become, Kraken forums

Niber

There is no hard and never will be.

1. You have to remove random 1-shots / control effects.
2. You'd have to mute all the Developer leaks.
3. You have to have a complex script that takes more than an 2 pulls to figure out.

None of these will ever happen in EQ2. ChelDrak / 3P are as close as they've ever been.

The notion that it's only hard if x-number of guilds can or can't kill it is dumb because everyone talks to their friends. The only way to differentiate between hard and trivial is the time from working (correctly) to WW1 .

__________________

LFG

Are you sure about Chel'Drak?

__________________

"Bottom line: we're not all being honest with ourselves here." Become, Kraken forums

Niber

I'm not saying either ChelDrak or 3P were hard, just that that's as close as they've ever been. ChelDrak's 1-shotting noxious AE was 98% of the original difficulty.

__________________

CorpalVirus

"Hard" should be only the top guild on the server is going to have a chance to beat it, but at the same time there should be a variety of instanced casual content. We have heroic instances/dungeons, and the very next jump is x4 content (not counting the x2 contested garbage that is usually dominated by top guilds for alts/plat) introduce as many x2 instances as we have x4, bump the x4 shit up to super hard mode and increase the quality of gear

just my 2c

__________________

Emanji

You can't really say that since not all "#1" guild on each server are created equal. But I agree with you, DMP type of hard is kinda stupid. EQ1 nut cases will tell you that their version of hard is one that couldn't be kill in one expansion. I think that a mob that mark as "hardest in game" should be killable by all servers within an expansion.

__________________


This is why I'm hot.

Anap KaSplat

Gotta find a way to separate "hard" and "nearly imfuckingpossible"

__________________

"If we try this I can look the other way in the name of epics" --Aeralik

Emanji

3P is pretty simple imo and was killed fairly early in the expansion. DMP on the other hand is pretty much what LFG is talking about. Impossible to kill with lower tier gear, longest time from first access to first kill, only 4 guilds killed it in the expansion.

__________________


This is why I'm hot.

Snark

Hard should have nothing to do with the amount of people playing the game. If every guild on the server can beat it, who cares. As long as it is hard, it works.

To clarify:

Hard encounters should be intuitive with fun scripts that require understandable coordination and harmony of a raid force. Hard should never be: Double-attacking raid mobs, random charms, stifle procs etc. Hard should be: Requiring players to adjust their strategies based on the encounter - not simply limiting their ability with control effects.

__________________


http://heyandy.ytmnd.com/
http://acceptable.tv/videos/769-Cirque-Du-Soleil
http://www.break.com/index/sheep-wea...ares-herd.html

Niber

There were like 3 hardcore raid guilds in DoF. Nobody cared about raiding and most of the original EQ1 "hardcore" guilds had already left EQ2. It was a transitional period for EQ2 between old schoolers leaving and server merges. If DMP was released now things would be different. I don't consider DMP to be a model of greatness, just a testimate to the sad state of affairs that was DoF and the downward spiral that is EQ2.

I think raiding (as a whole) was a lot healthier during KoS/TFD and onward.

But lets face it, this is how progression works.

Developer Leak > WW1 > WW1 friends > etc.

Who beat Darathar? Ardant Legion? Mmm.
Who beat Godking? NPU?
Who beat Tarinax? NPU? .. Mmm.
Who beat Trak? Mm..

What's the common factor here.

__________________