Possible Idea to Stop Automatic Buyer Programs Mentioned...Follow

What a crazy thread. Anyone who says they have not soloed...well they have. Sometimes not by choice, but, as was stated, by fate.

But to say soloers have no right to play?? What an absurd statement. I have friends that are soloers...that does not mean they do not enjoy the social aspect of the game. I chat in game with them all the time. Their character jsut has a different career path! :-) But they will buff when when I need and I will rez them when their kite figurativly gets tangled in the tree. :-)

And even if they do not socialize and want to solo and play EQ all alone. So what. I agree that they could save $12 a month and play some self-contained RPG...but who cares if they do play.

When I played a Druid as my primary, I soloed alot. I would get on and my friends would be busy or not there, so off to a big wide open space to kite-kill. Druids are built for that. I did not only solo and I definately prefer to group, but I can see the appeal of soloing certain classes and enjoying the zones and beastiary of EQ in that context.

My appologies for that mess above.

I have tried countless times to edit all of the duplicated crap, but there is something wrong with this buletin board code, it simple puts everything back in as soon as I hit the edit button.

Ick! Illuien. That was about the most ugly post I've seen (and I've seen lots). I can't tell which bits are you talking and which bits are quotes.

Hehe. And not to drown the already dead horse. But do you think the dozen times that Pat and Leiany used the term "soloer", they meant someone who just solos occasionally? Or someone who "prefers to solo over grouping"? Or maybe even "Someone who solos almost exclusively"? Dunno. I'm still not seeing a distinction. I still think both you and Leiany were using the two words/phrases to mean the exact same thing. If you took "soloers" to mean something else, that's up to you, however, I thought it was very clear that Leiany meant that term to be synonymous with your reference to the very group you said was an disruptive as Yantis.

Um... As to those greenies with the nice drops. Where do you think people farm? As you get higher level, you can gain plat much faster killing hordes of greenies then by killing blues and lt blues. Solo, this is especially true. I periodically make CC runs to get components for Thurg gate potions, and I'm always amazed at how much cash I can get during a 30 minute run through that zone. It's much more money then I could get camping anything close to my level. Of course, if I were to do this during peak times, I'd be depriving a whole zone full of groups of 25-30th level people of their camps.


It's not that I disagree about soloers. I do. I think they can be a problem to the game when in too large numbers. However, I don't think they're nearly the problem many player make them out to be. Most players in EQ would group if they could. Sometimes, time constraints make it so you can't. Sometimes, I'll log on on a weeknight, and only want to be on for an hour or so. I don't really have enough time to get into a LDoN group, and unless there's a guild group with an open slot, I'm not going to subject some random people to a player that's going to leave within an hour of joining them. So, I'll go work on faction that I need, or gather components for tradeskill stuff, or just generally dork around a bit. I don't think there really are that many players who exclusively solo nowadays.

And honestly, in the context of buying plat, I don't really care if a soloer does it anyway. They don't interrupt me or disrupt my play anymore whether they've got 1 mil worth of purchased gear on, or scraps they found off of orc pawns. The real market is players who want to compete with other players who've been around longer. They see buying gear as the fast way to get into the "top game". Of course, they suck at playing, so they end up forming crappy guilds that do nothing but flail miserably at content that other guilds might actually make use of.

I see this *alot* at my level. We'll see some guild full of level 65s with very obviously huge amounts of purchased gear (you can always tell btw, no one who raids for a living wears that much purchasable gear), blundering into an area we'd like to hit. I've lost count of the number of raid opportunities we've lost because one of these no-name gimp guilds will spend hours failing to kill a mob we could have downed in 20 minutes. But since they maybe got there first (cause there's tons of them nowadays, and the law of averages says this will happen pretty frequently), we're stuck either waiting for them to fail (which seems to always happen eventually), or just move on and hear that they failed about an hour after we've finished raiding for the day and most of our folks have logged off.


That's the real damage that I see. There is an absolutely huge number of "new" players coming into the game (or just finally getting up to decent levels), that feel that gear is all that's keeping them back from being an "uber" player. Of course, it's a pretty obvious logical statement that if you aren't in a guild capable of getting the loot you are wearing (or equivalent), that you can't tackle the content you *think* wearing that gear will allow you to tackle. Buying that stuff doesn't make them capable players. It does make them *think* they are, which is what's really dangerous...

I understand - in your opinion only what intteracts with you counts.

So if there'd be p.e. some "foreign guys" in your neighborhood who make trouble and you haven't really noticed all the other "foreign guys" you'd state that "foreigners are trouble"

It's that kind of thinking that made abominations like the Klu-Klux-Klan and ****-Germany possible - congrats on your point of view!

PS: I only speak german, I am no german :)))

Edited, Fri Feb 6 05:27:35 2004 by Leiany

Godwin's

I win!

Yes Leiany, I am one of the oldest and most credible posters on this board because I post links to viruses.

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ***** or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the ***** has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

I give up, you are the most obtuse and humourless individual I have come across.

Oiii ******** Now you are confusing me with Illuien. I was merely pointing out that your ability to argue is remedial.

Thi is my opinion, and I stick by it.

Calm down little fishy, remember that the universe doesn't revolve around you.

Word.