On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Josh Moore wrote:
>
> I did not like your tone, sir. you assume that I am a low level -twink-
> well, sorry to say, mister know it all, that I am a level 22 bard, and this
> is my ONLY damn character. for you to go say "Well, you don't -deserve- it
> then" is typical elitist attitude that is starting to drive me away from
> this game. What gives you the right to judge me?
I'm with Harmonic on this one. It's not an elitist attitude.
It's simply the design of the game that people your level
aren't supposed to be getting lambent armor. If you don't
like it, then either you need to gain a few more levels, or
you're playing the wrong game. If you're suggesting that you
deserve the armor at L22, then I suggest you email Verant
stating your reasons why you think a L22 bard should be able
to complete some relatively simple quests for armor that in
some cases is better than that dropped by L35-40 mobs.
What people are really griping about is that there are in fact
ways around the in-game limitations to what "level" of
equipment you can obtain. We've got a bunch of people who
like to play the work-for-everything-you-get game, and a bunch
of people who like to play the monty-haul-start-off-with-the-
best-of-everything game. Unfortunately, we all have them
playing in the same universe. If you were playing a pen and
paper RPG and found the group playing in a style you didn't
like, you'd pack up and find another group. That's where the
resentment and bitterness comes from.
That and Verant only taking half-measures to clearly define
exactly what type of game they want. This is another of those
all-or-nothing issues. Either you place no restrictions on
those wanting to play monty-haul, or you do everything you can
to stop them. Taking half-measures like proc level limits and
making some items no-drop just legitimizes the gripes of
anti-monty-haul players, while not really getting in the way
of monty-haul players. You create an issue where none
would've existed in-game if you'd gone the all-or-nothing
route.
--
John H. Kim
kim@...