[<a href='23977.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='23975.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='23977.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='23975.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 23976 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Mon Feb 26 19:09:28 GMT 2001 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> blitz_krieg@bigfoot.com <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Patch Message <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1355814790"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt;&gt;So now who is the very very very tiny minority???<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>The .28% of all players who play a Bard on PVP.<br/>
<br/>
.28% = 4% (who play Bards) & 6.92% (who play on PVP)<br/>
<br/>
(BTW, the 74 isn&#39;t an accurate count with anon/roleplay)<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
EQ is NON-PVP.  EQ is designed Non-PVP, balanced Non-PVP, playtested <br/>
Non-PVP, etc.  EQ is a Non-PVP game.  VI has stated numerous times <br/>
that EQ is designed and balanced to the PVE Game.  Then, and only <br/>
then, VI will adjust EQ to become EQ w/ PVP.  To say they implemented <br/>
DDD for PVP reasons alone is downright silly.  Yes, when talking song <br/>
usefulness, you CAN ignore the PVP aspect to DDD because EQ is not <br/>
designed for PVP.  They would NEVER design one song for the sole <br/>
purpose of being useful for PVP.  If any PVE aspect turns out to be <br/>
too overpowering for PVP, then VI will change those things on the PVP <br/>
servers ONLY (or, on PVE servers to account for Duels if the issue is <br/>
large enough).  There are many, many examples of Verant doing this.  <br/>
The reduction is spell damage PVP is one off the top of my head.<br/>
<br/>
Darkfox</div>