Good Duo ideas?

[rynnor]

Having a couple of kids my spare time is a bit erratic so I thought I'd start with two accounts so that I can progress without having to worry about destroying the group if I need to do an emergency nappy change!

A tank and some kind of healer would be the classic duo but I tend to favour mage classes - can anyone in beta suggest a good duo?

[Aada]

Ok first off i presume your running the game on 2 comps? well ive been browsing the EQ2 forums and there have been alot of posts about using 2 accounts to group up, i was going to do this too.

But apprently the combat system makes it very difficult to play 2 chars at the same time even old EQ players found running 2 accts at the same time was very difficult in EQ1 and this time it is almost impossible without multiple deaths happening..

So before you buy 2 copies anyway id check about first and see what you find..

[Das_Hibbie]

I would strongly disadvice you running tow accounts since you will be dying a lot. Thing is, many mobs are grouped and will make it extremely hard for you if you don't have an active player in the group. Of course you could take on solo mobs, but you might as well do that with just a mage, would be quicker

[rynnor]

Hmm - I asked a mate in beta and he suggested the old Necro + shambot method - I'm not sure If he meant that they should be grouped or not tho...

He estimates using the above duo will take him about 2 weeks to get to 50 and he can then use the Necro to PL his other chars - I thought EQ2 had tried to eliminate this?

I'll still get two accounts anyway as I tend to like trying different race/class combos - especially if theres only 4 char per account...

[Crookshanks]

Originally Posted by rynnor

Hmm - I asked a mate in beta and he suggested the old Necro + shambot method - I'm not sure If he meant that they should be grouped or not tho...

He estimates using the above duo will take him about 2 weeks to get to 50 and he can then use the Necro to PL his other chars - I thought EQ2 had tried to eliminate this?

I'll still get two accounts anyway as I tend to like trying different race/class combos - especially if theres only 4 char per account...

Surely though there's no need to pl in EQ2? I can/could see the point in DAOC, since the "end game" starts at 50 (ie. rvr), but without the pvp content why do people feel the need to rush to 50?

From personal experience - I thoroughly enjoyed DAOC when I had 1 account, having to find groups to do things, making friends, interacting with others. Then I got a second (and now a third), and yes sure I can level to 50 an awful lot quicker, I can "solo" some of the higher level encounters, but I'm constantly questioning myself "am I actually enjoying this?".

Having preeched all that - of course if you really want to try lots of servers/characters then multiple accounts is the way to go. I'm just trying to say why not start with one and see how things are before deciding (before the games even been launched) what are the best class combinations are for optimum power levelling.

[rynnor]

If the grouping is as good as they say then I'll just use the second account for extra character slots as to my mate and his Pl'ing he tends to want to try every class in the game (as he actually did in Daoc) so the PL'ing has been his way to cut the grind.

However on eq2 I think he may well change his mind - all depends how the game actually turns out in reality...

[rynnor]

Originally Posted by Das_Hibbie

I would strongly disadvice you running tow accounts since you will be dying a lot. Thing is, many mobs are grouped and will make it extremely hard for you if you don't have an active player in the group. Of course you could take on solo mobs, but you might as well do that with just a mage, would be quicker

Hmm - I think a mezzer plus damage dealer could easily handle grouped monsters from a two account stand point - actively pull with chanter mez then damage dealer kills em - rinse repeat...

But if I am on long enough I'd always group for preference - big part of the fun - however I dont like it when people keep going afk or just not paying attention when I group so it would be a bit hypocritical if I were to do the same thing...

[Das_Hibbie]

Originally Posted by rynnor

Hmm - I asked a mate in beta and he suggested the old Necro + shambot method - I'm not sure If he meant that they should be grouped or not tho...

He estimates using the above duo will take him about 2 weeks to get to 50 and he can then use the Necro to PL his other chars - I thought EQ2 had tried to eliminate this?

I'll still get two accounts anyway as I tend to like trying different race/class combos - especially if theres only 4 char per account...

Oh that wouldn't work at all! Firstly, the buffs are group only so you'll have to have your "buffbot" grouped. Secondly, necroes are in no way like daoc necroes and can absolutely not take on a lot of foes. They have caster hps, cloth armor and the pet is very weak. It dies extremely fast.

And no, you can't get to 50 in 2 weeks You do realise that none has reached lvl 50 in beta? Highest has been 45ish something and he's pretty much powerplayed his char. Then a few people have been bumped to 50 by devs, but that doesn't count.

PL doesn't occur since there is a great exp penalty when grouping with someone a lot higher than yourself. You'd be better off killing greens solo and taking large coffee breaks between each solo pull

As for a mezzer, it's not really that simple either :/ Well sure you could do a mezzer/dmg dealer combo but you would actively have to play both your chars. You can't just mez and forget as an enchanter. Also you would have to play both chars actively no matter what class you choose if you want to perform the Combat Wheels which are almost required sometimes against hard mobs. Especially in a small group!

But really why not solo? Soloing is very effective and viable imo. Perhaps you'll need to group at later lvls but even then you can do solo quests etc if you don't have time to group.

[Das_Hibbie]

Originally Posted by rynnor

But if I am on long enough I'd always group for preference - big part of the fun - however I dont like it when people keep going afk or just not paying attention when I group so it would be a bit hypocritical if I were to do the same thing...

One way of getting around this problem is being the group leader yourself. Make it clear for everybody that you want people to pay attention. The ones who don't agree with it are obviously not interested in being very focused on the game. And this will also clearly show on the Combat Wheels, who interrupts them

Goodluck with whatever you choose btw!

[rynnor]

Originally Posted by Das_Hibbie

Goodluck with whatever you choose btw!

Cheers - you too I shall go with my original choice of Dark Elf coercer and see how it goes - if I get stuck levelling I might go the self grouping route but for the moment I cant wait to get playing!

[Das_Hibbie]

It's really fun indeed! As a Coercer you probably won't find yourself looking for groups for long either since they're not very common but add a lot to a group!

[Wichtel]

Buffbotting wont work well in EQ II because there are no pure buffers, and buffs in general aren't that important as in DAoC and spread over some classes.
If you just focus on one toon and use the others for buffs and heals, you will miss the other goodies the priest classes have, although the targetting system might help you playing both actively.
When talking about duos in general, there are quite a few solid team setups, like Paldin/Bard, Paladin/Rogue, Priest/Tank, Priest/Rogue and even two different priest classes work well. I have not played in mage duos long enough, but on higher levels a petclass or an enchanter together with a nuker might work too, although it looks more dangerous that with the good olde tank/healer duo.
Another think is what encouters are there for you. Most 'group' encounters will be to hard for a duo or you have to keep yourself on greens. The other option, going for 'solo' encounters, is fine too, but slow xp, looks like they are better suited for real solo players.

W.