> the problem is, i think these are bogus reasons.
>
Bogus or not, they're reasons people gave as to why DDD never gets
memmed. It was apparent to me, before I even wrote the first post
with the first question, that you already used the song. So the
question never applied to you in the first place. Of course, now the
thread has been completely derailed from people giving suggestions
(what, there was one answer?) and into discussing whether this song
is worth memming again. My question was trying to move the discusion
OFF whether it's useful (because we've established that most people
say it's not) to what would make it useful. Maybe I'll start
addressing you as GrollerDaBard the way you manage to highjack a
topic.
> >"Takes too much mana, so I can't charm."
>
> this is valid if you are charming. it seems like most bards don't
charm in groups with an enchanter, so that makes this only valid in
non enchanter groups.
So it's valid in groups without chanters, or in groups where you're
still charming even with an Enchanter present (to satisfy groller,
few Bards are in this situation). It's also valid if you ever think
that maybe you'll lose the Enchanter in 10 minutes and may need mana
to charm.
Status: Non-bogus reason making DDD useless.
> >"Takes too much mana, so the recast is way too long."
>
> recast is not an issue since you can swap it out whenever you don't
have enough mana to cast it and swap it back in when you do.
Recast contributes to usefulness in the sense of damage over time.
This probably belongs in combination with the next point about damage
being weak.
Status: Non-bogus reason, in combination with other bad aspects of
the song.
> >"The damage it does is pitiful, especially when you look at the
mob scaling between 50 and 60."
>
> it may be pitiful, but so is bard melee. does that mean you don't
melee at all? it may not be the be all end all of all damage songs or
spells, but that doesn't mean that there is no place for it.
The reasons stated 450 damage vs. a 100k mob is worthless. You point
out our melee is also worthless. So how does that make this song
more valuable?
Status: Non-bogus reason.
> >"It's AE, and I'd NEVER use an AE song.. The Chanter would kill
me."
>
> this is just so wrong on so many levels that it would take a whole
other post to address this. for the sake of brevity, i'll just point
to my earlier posts where i pointed out when an excellent time to use
this song was, which wouldn't mess up the enchanter at all and would
do a significant amount of damage.
Yeah, we've read all those posts of yours. It's still a reason given
by Bards and one I threw up there (and answered with my own opinion
if you remember correctly) to get some discussion going.
> >So, my question is... "What would have to change in order to
justify
> >memming this song?"
> >
> >I'm not talking about it turning into the primary song every Bard
> >plays from 43 to 60. I'm talking about it becoming useful..
> >occasionally, every once in awhile, rarely... something more than
NOT
> >EVER.
>
> sorry, maybe i misinterpreted your 90% statement then, my bad. i
originally thought you meant that 90% of the time, bards would be
using it. but maybe you meant that 90% of the bards would use it
once in a while. in that case, i think it has it's uses once in a
while if you use it correctly.
What I'm interested in finding out what would have to change in order
for most Bards to be able to think of a time they could use it.
Rather than most saying they would never mem the song. And yes, we
already know you think it's useable every once in awhile, which means
the original question didn't apply to you at all.
Darkfox