Myconid Spore King - Monk Solo

[Zuranthium]

Potions are cheat. They deserve to have interruptabe activation times.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Potions are cheat. They deserve to have interruptabe activation times.

These kinds of consumables are generally rare/expensive enough to prevent most players from using them constantly. OP spent like 1.6k or so in a few seconds with those Wort Pots, plus 600 plat for the reaper. Most mobs aren't worth spending 2.2k on per mob. Fungi King makes sense, as Fungi Tunic sells for 35k or so.

I've rarely used my WC Cap/Reaper over the years because it's generally been easier for me to find a res, and a 100pp tip is cheaper than a recharge. The plat also goes to a player rather than a merchant.

Things have changed a bit now that the population is lower. More cleric bots, but less people in general to res you.

[kjs86z2]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These kinds of consumables are generally rare/expensive enough to prevent most players from using them constantly. OP spent like 1.6k or so in a few seconds with those Wort Pots, plus 600 plat for the reaper. Most mobs aren't worth spending 2.2k on per mob. Fungi King makes sense, as Fungi Tunic sells for 35k or so.

yes OP definitely only wanted to do it for the chance at getting a fungi and if it were another mob that didn't drop loot it wouldn't be worth while

(lol)

nice one, Sscalez...somehow more impressive than kelz's

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by kjs86z2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yes OP definitely only wanted to do it for the chance at getting a fungi

I didn't say that. Why put words in my mouth? This is clearly a flex video, and a good one.

I was simply saying that these kinds of consumables aren't that overpowered, because most people aren't going to pay 2.2k per mob. This means these consumables are limited in their scope of use. They would be overpowered if you could just buy a 10 dose potion of Wort for 100pp.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Crede can keep incorrectly summarizing a three year old thread if he wishes. People can read it if they want the truth.

He has to go off topic as he can't even win an argument in this thread.

It is just sad that after multiple years he still claims a static group of four players cannot log into a pocket cleric account. He has had a pocket cleric since 2014. If the static group of four players was a guild with just those four players, the pocket cleric would be a guid bot. All guilds use guild bots.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Artist_Challenge

It deserves the highest ranking of [S] when following the solo artist challenge wiki page. Please note the wiki page was changed after OP did his video, and the changes are still in dispute. [S+] did not exist as a rank previously.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right, but that sounds like what's best for a bunch of whiny forum posters that each feel the need to force their opinion on everyone else.

What page(s) would be best for the community?

For the two posters (Zuranthium and Samoht) who have a different idea of what a solo challenge is to make their own solo challenge. It's really that simple.

I am literally just advocating for the solo artist page to remain as-is before Zuranthium and Samoht's edits. Neither side gets their changes. I haven't proposed any changes.

This is the fairest solution. Since both parties cannot agree, the wiki page does not change.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the two posters (Zuranthium and Samoht) who have a different idea of what a solo challenge is to make their own solo challenge. It's really that simple

But it's not just two posters! It's obvious: there are more soloers out there than the five or so people participating in this thread.

Let's say someone drives to Zura and Samo's house tonight and murders them: will that conclusively settle the "right" way to solo? I guarantee you it will not, and in a week, a month, or a year someone will disagree with you again.

My point is, there is no official way to solo, and there never will be. For this reason, the wiki will never be in the business of deciding the "right way" to solo. You (and everyone else in this thread) need to accept that fact.

Thus:

I am literally just advocating for the solo artist page to remain as-is before Zuranthium and Samoht's edits. Neither side gets their changes. I haven't proposed any changes.

This is the fairest solution. Since both parties cannot agree, the wiki page does not change.

is not the best solution, because it's still picking a side. If the wiki is going to have an "official" Solo Artist Challenge page, then that page needs to be for all solo artists.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the two posters (Zuranthium and Samoht) who have a different idea of what a solo challenge is to make their own solo challenge. It's really that simple.

There is no "different solo challenge" and it's far more than us two, stop lying. Countless people in this thread have agreed the wiki needed to be updated and shown support for what it was edited to. It now accurately reflects the different challenge modes possible and what tons of soloers have done, whose work has now been uploaded and categorized on the wiki. You're the only person who is spamming that it didn't need to be updated.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My argument is that changes to the wiki done to troll a specific user in a specific thread should be reverted.

There's no such thing happening. This is just the only thing your brain is capable of processing. Not changing the wiki would troll the tons of people whose work was not properly recognized. Why are you trying to diminish all of them? The work the poster of this thread did would be diminished if the wiki was not updated.

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This shouldn't even be called Solo Artist Challenge specifically as we have a chance for Duo's to shine and it shouldn't just be limited to solo/duo. But as others have mentioned most people doing stuff like this don't actually post videos most likely because they don't want to give away their game mechanic knowledge(which is the only edge you really need in this game, not "skill")

Yep. Only like 2% of EQ players at most have put their gameplay on video. Aside from people simply not caring to do it, publicizing things like this shows more people how to do it, which makes it harder to do the camps yourself.

[Crede]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is just sad that after multiple years he still claims a static group of four players cannot log into a pocket cleric account. He has had a pocket cleric since 2014. If the static group of four players was a guild with just those four players, the pocket cleric would be a guid bot. All guilds use guild bots.

The official definition of static is "lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting".

Why would a static caster group of 4 care to make a change to log on a cleric when they could simply have them in their own group as clerics are more desirable than shamans to enchanters in every way possible.

Not only are you trying to change the definition of static, but you are just making this group even more inefficient by trying to continuously bring in a shaman. If that thread had said ideal 4 man group + pocket char, then you may be onto something there as you could probably just pocket the shaman for outside buffs if so desired(I think a pocket mage would still be preferred). But unfortunately for your sake it didn't, and you only continue to look more pathetic the more you spread lies about it.

I can't wait to see this new wiki update reflecting the proper feelings of the community and the dated one moved into a Kunark archive somewhere.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The official definition of static is "lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting".

Why would a static caster group of 4 care to make a change to log on a cleric when they could simply have them in their own group as clerics are more desirable than shamans to enchanters in every way possible.

Not only are you trying to change the definition of static, but you are just making this group even more inefficient by trying to continuously bring in a shaman. If that thread had said ideal 4 man group + pocket char, then you may be onto something there. But unfortunately for your sake it didn't, and you only continue to look more pathetic the more you spread lies about it.

I can't wait to see this new wiki update reflecting the proper feelings of the community and the dated one moved into a Kunark archive somewhere.

Crede is claiming a guild with four members in it is not allowed to have guild bots. I disagree with this idea.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Artist_Challenge

It deserves the highest ranking of [S] when following the solo artist challenge wiki page. Please note the wiki page was changed after OP did his video, and the changes are still in dispute. [S+] did not exist as a rank previously.