At 01:42 PM 10/11/00 -0600, Kimes, Dean W. wrote:
>Please remember my motto in all things I post.
>
>"I may not be the Devil's advocate, but I play one in EQ"
ROFL
>I'm not saying bard's are worthless or that EQ is a terrible game. Bards
>are not worthless they just don't get the treatment the class deserves and
>that other, better internally represented ones do. Our issues are never a
>priority and we generally get the brush-off even after testing.
I think bards are one of the least understood classes as they are very
complicated. They wield weapons but aren't that great at them. They have
songs instead of spells that require no mana. It requires someone who
studies them to really understand how to play them effectively.
Whenever I'm running around and run across another bard (very rarely
happens) I almost always send them a tell of some sort. When I see one
fighting nearby, I see what they sing and compliment them if they show a
good understanding. (of course, that's kind of arrogant since that means I
believe myself to know what's good).
>EQ isn't a horrible game, quite the opposite. Verant's customer service and
>general attitude on the other hand are horrible. How would you feel if you
>bought a loaf of bread that was stale and the grocery store told you "sorry,
>that's just the way that bread is". Verant does the equivalent to their
>customers every day. The guild doesn't dislike EQ, but they would never
>invest the time they put into it in another Verant game. We have been
>gradually losing members over this for some time now.
Well Verant definitely doesn't fall into the Nordstrom customer service
realm. But I wouldn't say their customer service is horrible. Can we "agree
to disagree? :-)
They do address bard issues when it's a high priority. Remember when our
weapons weren't proc'ing anymore after one of their patches? They fixed
that within a day I think. I do think that bards overall are lower on their
list of priorities since they will support the majority of players who are
playing more of the popular classes.
I suppose if they upped the monthly fee all around that we could get better
customer service (as staffing is the largest expense in any company). But
I'm sure their marketing research has shown that they can get the most
number of people to play for $10/month and to go above that would lose them
many more people than they would with their current customer service. I
know I wouldn't play if it were $20/month. I'd think you'd have to be
absolutely nuts to want to pay $49.95/month. What was that all about? :-P
---Windleaf