[<a href='20042.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='20040.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='20045.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='20038.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 20041 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Tue Jun 27 19:01:15 BST 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Mike Merck <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [eqbards] Another Lullaby question <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-532166847">I think the reason lullaby will never work to the degree we all want it too<br/>
is simple - it would devalue the enchanter class to such a huge degree there<br/>
would hardly be a need for them. It would be so hugely unbalancing that VI<br/>
will never make it work the way it seems it should.<br/>
<br/>
An AoE mez that doesn&#39;t require mana, doesn&#39;t require targeting, allows you<br/>
to melee as well and crowd control with no effort, risk or thought other<br/>
than hitting a single hotkey is just too powerful.<br/>
<br/>
It&#39;s the same reason they nerfed 54 chains.<br/>
<br/>
Maybe what people should do is offer suggestions about how to balance the<br/>
song in a different way other than having it not work 90% of the time. Like,<br/>
make it cost mana for each pulse or make it effect the bard as well as the<br/>
mobs, or make it a single pulse song instead of a constant one.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; After looking over the Lullaby data again while posting a huge sledgehammer<br/>
&gt; of a question hit me over the head.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Why does Lullaby have a secondary resist???<br/>
&gt; </span></blockquote></div>