I would agree if it were not for one thing. Difficulty of actual play.
There is no other class which even remotely approaches the actual physical
difficulty of play which the bard class presents. I don't think bards are
adequately recompensed for that aspect of the playability factor; in fact I
don't think it even enters into the equation in Verant's mind because
despite their claims to the contrary it is quite evident that no one there
plays a bard regularly.
I think that if all the classes were properly balanced we would see a more
balanced representation of the classes in the overall population. That is
not the case. Certain classes so far outnumber others that it is readily
apparent there must be a reason for it. Certain other classes, including
bards, are so vastly underrepresented that there also must be a reason for
that. Personal preference would obviously create some variation, but across
a population as large as this one that variation would not be at the levels
we see now. Below is just a sample from E'ci that I took in the off-peak
hours when I could get some actual numbers. Note that 'Anonymous' will
lower the numbers shown for some classes, but typically should be fairly
equal for all classes except those with high "request" factors like druids,
shamans, enchanters, and clerics.
Note these numbers are the averages over 4 nites at around 3am mst.
Warriors 32+ too many to list
Rogues 9.5
Monks 5.5
Rangers 30
Paladins 27
Shadowknights 17.5
Bards 5
Wizards 19.25
Magicians 29.75
Necromancers 32+ too many to list
Enchanters 25+ One night there were too many to
list
Clerics 31+ Two nights there were too many to list
Druids 32+ too many to list
Shamans 23.75
With over 600 people on the server this means that either half the
server was Anonymous or Roleplaying (Highly unlikely) or those classes
which were too many to list were actually much, much higher than 32 in
number.
Kitasi
-----Original Message-----
From: Cranfill, Wendy [mailto:
Wendy_Cranfill@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:03 AM
To: '
eqbards@egroups.com'
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Proposal to change how bard haste songs stack
with enchanter/sham an haste spells
Wow, I couldn't agree more! It has always been my pet peeve to hear people
say those things... I have never played D&D but I hear it was wonderful
because you could have the "fighter/mage" which I think is what a lot of
people look for.. something that is powerful in every aspect. Despite
general opinion, I really believe that the best part about EQ is class
balance, and I think Verant does a pretty good job. Sure there are
shortcomings and the system isn't perfect but I think it works well.
People, by nature, just generally want it ALL :)
Halana, 58th Shaman
Tani, 39th Bard
SolusekRo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Sue [mailto:jsue@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: eqbards@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [eqbards] Proposal to change how bard haste songs stack
> with enchanter/sham an haste spells
>
>
> I personally think our power is balanced with the other classes as the
> game currently exists and any haste stacking would overpower the bard
> class.
>
> One of the flaws that I see in a lot of arguments for more
> powers is ''in literature
> bards have...blah blah blah'', or ''in history, bards
> were....blah blah blah'', or my
> favorite, ''in my vision bards should be able to do....blah
> blah blah, the designer
> Verant's vision is obviously wrong''. While everquest can be
> said to be loosely based
> on various fantasy sources, it is a separate entity and any
> direct comparisons to
> external sources really aren't necessarily a compelling
> argument for or against anything.
>
> Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to
> lol@... with the subject submissions.
>
Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to
lol@...
with the subject submissions.