On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Robin Wise 3 wrote:
>
> The delineation of melee skills is compelling in my eyes as one reason bards
> are not hybrids. As John said, we're "not-a", or put another way we share
> characteristics of many classes without being classified as a member of that
> class. We're kinda like rogues (silly skills), kinda like enchanters (some
> buffs, debuffs, and crowd control), kinda like shamans (some more buffs,
> minor healing). Yet we're not-a-fighter, not-a-healer, not-a-caster. We
Hmm, I guess I was a bit too subtle in my cynicism. :)
When the classes get good stuff, we're a "not-a-" class.
Casters get bind, but we're not-a-caster. Melee classes get
parry and riposte, but we're not-a-melee. Hybrids got those
minor resist bonuses, but we're not-a-hybrid.
OTOH, when classes get nerfed, we're a "everything" class.
DoT damage gets nerfed, we're a kiting class. Monster damage
gets increased to make life tougher on melee classes, we're a
melee class. etc.
The problem with being a "not-a-" class is that it's not
definitive subset. It changes based on the whim of what the
speaker wants it to be. Verant uses it to make good sounding
excuses to deny us things they give other classes. You want
bind? But you're not a real casting class. You want parry?
But you're not a real melee class. OTOH, if they'd classified
us as hybrids for example, we would've gotten parry and the
resist bonuses.
> and 1 bard class (bard). Our songs are NOT like the spells of any other
> class in the way they are implemented (pulses? what's a pulse? why would I
> weave spells?);
Funny you should mention that. My speculation is that this
weaving business was completely accidental. I suspect the
game works on a 6 second heartbeat, so the shortest possible
spell/song duration is 6 seconds (this is a MUD-derived game
after all). If you start/stop Accel and time its duration,
it's always between 12 and 18 seconds. That's 2 heartbeats +
[0 to 1.0 heartbeats depending on when you started the song in
the initial heartbeat]. So I suspect they made a song system
which had "instant" on/off effects, then found out that it let
you weave two songs, and decided it was a neat enough effect
that they increased some of the durations to make it easier to
do. At its inception, I think bard songs were intended to
only last while the bard was singing them. They just found it
impossible to code it that way.
> others; and almost every one of our spells improves linearly with the level
> of the caster. Plus of course there's the fact that we only get one spell
> per level (well, in theory anyways). Ok, ok, they're songs, not spells - we
> differentiate our effects from all other casters', don't we? = )
That's another gripe that I have. Since we only get one song
per level, I don't see why *all* our "spells" don't improve
with level. Specifically, Chain's slowdown. I mean here are
all these high level mobs which are designed to still be
challenging if an enchanter or shaman tosses a 100% or so
slowdown, and they won't improve our slowdown over the initial
30%?
Anyways, I still enjoy playing the game. I just don't think
the bard class was implemented very well. Mind you I would
never have decided this if I hadn't gotten the chance to play
Verant's implementation. They didn't screw up, they tried
something and IMHO it wasn't very successful. I think a good
way to implement a bard class in a real-time RPG will involve
different musical skills, phrasing, key, complexity, etc.,
each having a different magical effect. The bard can then
pick and choose, effectively composing on the fly to make
different combinations of effects. e.g. Minor key debuffs
opponent, major key buffs party; brass affects speed, drum
affects stats, and so on. As your skill increases, so does
the complexity of your song and thus the power of the effect
(including being able to mix together things that are
typically mutually exclusive like major and minor key).
That and the stupid missed notes, which IMHO are pointless
with a class that doesn't have any mana to fizzle. :)
--
John H. Kim
kim@...