Well, I don't particularly want my bard to be able to bind - I don't mind
finding or waiting for a caster - my problem is WHERE noncasters can be bound.
As someone pointed out earlier - it tends to make folks much less likely to
explore the world - course he was happy bout that - only 10 folks in his
dungeon whereas places like BB and CB are bursting at the seams.
If you really want folks to get out an explore, you don't penalize them
with half hour - hour - sometimes longer 'downtime', just to get back to
their corpse.
At 08:16 PM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>From: "J.M. Capozzi" <croak63@...>
>
>
>It was decided early on that all casting classes (not hybrids) would have
>Gate, and only a couple classes would have Bind Affinity. As a matter of
>fact, some of you early phase testers might recall that Bind used to require
>a then hard to find and costly stone to cast.
>
>After a lot of heated debate, the spell was given to all pure casters, and
>after more heated debate the cost of the spell became mana only. You don't
>want to know how ugly it got when the idea of the casters being able to self
>bind anywhere besides in an adventure zone came up.
>
>So, I wouldn't ever expect any of the hybrid classes to be able to bind. It
>is not going to happen, it's something of a concession that bind even works
>the way it does now. The idea of inns or static NPC's that could bind was
>kicked around back in beta, and rejected.
>
>This is akin to the exp loss reductions that have twice occurred, once in
>Beta, and once again in Final. Both times, there was a very strong negative
>reaction from many members of the development team, a schism if you will.
>But in the name of the holy grail of "playability", the experience loss
>reductions were implemented. This was partially offset by the increased
>experience needed for levels after 25th implemented a few weeks earlier (but
>much too late imho, the damage was done)
>
>In the case of experience loss, the changes were made to help out the game's
>actual market. The mass market, RPG newcomer. The game is complex by
>design, lightly documented by design, and often daunting, and far too many
>folks bypass the built in training curve via various methods, leaving them
>at moderately high levels with very deficient play skills (and character
>skills).
>
>Those folks tended to die a lot more often than was necessary all of a
>sudden, and watching that exp bar keep dropping was pretty discouraging,
>especially when you didn't learn from your mistakes. And there are the
>inevitable bugs and zone crashes that were fairly common early in retail and
>still persist. After a bit of this, people start to vote with their feet.
>And since the bulk of the player base fell into this category in one way or
>another, from a business standpoint it was suicidal to stand by design
>principles in this case.
>
>With the success of EQ, I'm hoping the existing player base will in the
>future be educated enough about RPGs in general, and Verant quirks in
>specific, so that when EQ2 rolls out, the bar can be raised in terms of
>experience and rate of progression/regression. Hitting the level cap in 45
>days is appalling to me. Hitting it in 120 days, no matter how dedicated a
>player you are, still makes me twitch and drool some.
>
>In the case of Bind Affinity, there's more than enough bind capable players
>online on any server at any time to accommodate player needs. The only time
>this is not the case is when a fresh server comes online, and the race to
>12th or 14th level is on, and those few casters that reach it first are
>heavily in demand..but only for a matter of days or even hours.
>
>This is still a strong balancing factor. Synergy. Interaction.
>
>Now, you ask, why did I compare the experience loss changes to giving Bind
>Affinity to everyone, either by spell or by NPC's? Well, both rank right up
>there as the most requested changes to the game. One happened, one won't.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Snicker Furfoot, Esq. <snicker@...>
>To: <eqbards@onelist.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 6:04 PM
>Subject: [eqbards] NPC's Binding
>
>
>> From: "Snicker Furfoot, Esq." <snicker@...>
>>
>> At 02:51 PM 7/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> >From: scott@... (scott brisko)
>> >
>> >What I would like to see is an NPC that could bind for a fee, and limit
>> >class based binding to one of a few classes. The advantage that the
>class/es
>> >would have is the ability to bind themselves away from a city, which is a
>> >nice limit for the NPC's. Make sense to me if you want to foster a sense
>of
>> >being able to explore the world safely.
>>
>> Actually, that would make a heckuva lot of sense. J.M., mebbe you could
>> suggest this idea:
>> Inn-running NPC's could, when given the proper coin, cast a "bind" spell
>on
>> a player. To determine the cost, hail the Innkeeper, and ask the cost for
>a
>> night. It would make sense, RP-wise, and if you made it cost, say 1 plat,
>> players could still undercut the merchants, but other players wouldn't be
>> SOL. This would still encourage players to work together to get bound in
>> certain areas (not every zone has an Inn, most Inns are inconvenient at
>> best. Certain Inns have associated hazards...), but allow travelers to
>feel
>> safer traveling.
>>
>> Comments?
>> Talies the Wanderer
>> Still bound to Kelethin after all these years *grin*
>>
>> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>>
>> Attention ONElist list owners!
>> http://www.onelist.com/info/news.html
>> Check out the new "DEFAULT MODERATED STATUS" option.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Congratulations MilitaryEFM. Our latest ONElist of the week.
>http://www.onelist.com
>How is ONElist changing YOUR life? Visit our homepage and let us know!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>