Celtic Heroes

mdimarco wrote:
2. Soloing is too easy and profitable. Leveling should be challenging and require a group for serious leveling and dungeoning. Boosting group xp again would be a good first step. Mob placement needs to be like those humanoids in otherworld in more cases and areas like that should be more profitable in xp.
I can see this, in other players. I don't have this problem, as it takes me several minutes to kill a 3-star mob due to my support skill point allocation, but i see well geared DPS classes mow through mobs like a hot knife through butter. If mobs were harder I'd be more in demand for training groups as a healer. I don't know if i agree with profitable, though. The game culture has really evolved into not so much 'luxury items, but more like 'really expensive end-game required items'

I meant xp profitable. I'll edit to clarify.

Sure mariner. I played Everquest back in 99' for about a year. I loved it. Then I quit when the endless expansions came out. I came back a couple years later but quit again because all the zones I wanted to play were abandoned for all the new zones.

Ever since I had been having memories of EQ and craving it with no real closure till I found Celtic Heroes.

Around the same period I was waiting for diablo 2 to come out so played diablo 1 and loved it. I then spent about 10 years playing diablo 2 regularly/daily. I loved it.

During that decade I beta tested WoW but quit when I was about level 20 since it was too kiddie on graphics and gameplay. Just didn't capture my attention like everquest or diablo did.

I also recently tried order and chaos, but it was too claustrophobic feeling and confusing for me. I quit at around level 15.

Obviously CH has something that captures my attention, not quite as well as original EQ or even diablo 2 (just because it isn't as polished on dev work probably) but still a great game which has helped me get over EQ maybe lol. And I don't plan on quitting.

Your gaming history sounds exactly like mine except replace WoW beta with EQ2 which I desperately tried to enjoy in vain. That game was a flop from the beginning and it took me years to realize it.

I don't know what it is with CH, but it satisfies my MMORPG hunger.

I have to disagree with this at every level. a decent duo, or really well geared solo'er can basically empty a whole are of mobs starting at like lvl 10.
I've made previous posts about how a lix'd up rogue with lux gear decimated the whole wisp forest for like an hour. I saw it again at ow eyes, and we all know how easy it is to keep the 6(7?) trees on lockdown. More people doesn't solve this problem. I actually plan my playtime to be in a group, or 'have something going' before primetime gets ramped up, so people see a duo or trio running around a mostly empty golem field (or wherever), and think 'Eh..., I'll move along'

Exactly! First time I saw someone do this (Low 50s, cleaning the hog pit, as in all of it sans reds by herself) , I was like, crap where is my credit apple??!?!?!!?

mdimarco wrote:
6. Lack of server density. Either because of low player retention due to above reasons, not enough marketing, or too many servers. It needs to be more player dense.

Andiamo:
I have to disagree with this at every level. a decent duo, or really well geared solo'er can basically empty a whole are of mobs starting at like lvl 10.
I've made previous posts about how a lix'd up rogue with lux gear decimated the whole wisp forest for like an hour. I saw it again at ow eyes, and we all know how easy it is to keep the 6(7?) trees on lockdown. More people doesn't solve this problem. I actually plan my playtime to be in a group, or 'have something going' before primetime gets ramped up, so people see a duo or trio running around a mostly empty golem field (or wherever), and think 'Eh..., I'll move along'

I agree. They could keep the same size zones if they increased mob difficulty, xp, and loot. Everyone shouldn't need a square mile to level, elixirs also contribute to this problem.

I think elixirs, at least how they are implemented today, have proven to be a bad idea lol

mdimarco wrote:
6. Lack of server density. Either because of low player retention due to above reasons, not enough marketing, or too many servers. It needs to be more player dense.

Andiamo:
I have to disagree with this at every level. a decent duo, or really well geared solo'er can basically empty a whole are of mobs starting at like lvl 10.
I've made previous posts about how a lix'd up rogue with lux gear decimated the whole wisp forest for like an hour. I saw it again at ow eyes, and we all know how easy it is to keep the 6(7?) trees on lockdown. More people doesn't solve this problem. I actually plan my playtime to be in a group, or 'have something going' before primetime gets ramped up, so people see a duo or trio running around a mostly empty golem field (or wherever), and think 'Eh..., I'll move along'

I agree. They could keep the same size zones if they increased mob difficulty, xp, and loot. Everyone shouldn't need a square mile to level, elixirs also contribute to this problem.

I think elixirs, at least how they are implemented today, have proven to be a bad idea lol

Sorry, I realize this is the third time I'm saying this, but this is not an issue about "what's wrong" with the game. What you want is something that's simply Different from what we have now. Making mobs more difficult, in lieu of better loot and Xp will actually exacerbate the issue, and the gap between the luxed and the non-luxed player.

As for Andiamo's post that you're agreeing to; it wasn't the lix that allowed that rogue (in my case, it was a DPS warrior) to decimate the wisps. It's the lux gear s/he was wearing, lol.

Ya I said elixirs contribute. Also my first point was put everyone on the same playing field which would help negate the rampant lux mob decimation. Yes, I do it too.

And I see what your saying but I do think these are problems with the game. Hence "what's wrong".

We don't really need a social place that much. I mean, it would be cool but we already have clan and group chats.

Ya I said elixirs contribute. Also my first point was put everyone on the same playing field which would help negate the rampant lux mob decimation. Yes, I do it too.

And I see what your saying but I do think these are problems with the game. Hence "what's wrong".

What, exactly, is a "plain playing field"?

If I wanted to spend $1K on this game, why should I be in the same "field" as someone who's playing it for free? This doesn't make sense. If we both paid a monthly, and nothing more, then Maybe there is such a thing as a "plain playing field", but then there's the issue of the guy who plays 12 hours a day, and the other that plays 8 hours a Week...

-1. i think the game is pretty good as is, just need more bosses that are easier and possible to kill with resto pots solo, simaler to the level 50 dragon, but with good drops

... it wasn't the lix that allowed that rogue (in my case, it was a DPS warrior) to decimate the wisps. It's the lux gear s/he was wearing, lol.

It was never about the use of the exp elixer, that's a whole separate issue. The crux of the issue is a triad of conditions and encompasses multiple aspects of what's 'broken'.
1) luxury gear like regen items and insanely powerful weapons are commonplace, with a little discretionary income spent. This speaks to the 2-class system, The Haves and Have-Nots that was outlined in the original post.
2) mobs die very quickly and at not much cost to the solo player, with a small monetary investment to buy the luxury items described in #1. Still possible without real money spent, but less likely and requires having a previous high level character to funnel gold down. Either way, low enemy difficulty offers little incentive to group until well into Otherworld.
3) there are simply not enough mobs to 'go around' for everyone.

Fix #1, and it's a level playing field, negating #'s 2 and 3. Soloing is less appealing due to inefficiency.
Fix #2 and solo super geared players can't kill on an endless streak, making grouping much more appealing. Diminishes the impact of #3.
EDIT: Fix #2 and it lessens the dramatic effect of #1, further encouraging grouping.
Fix#3 and it doesn't matter if #'2 exists.