[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 3561
Date: Wed Jul 14 19:25:59 BST 1999
Author: Mike Roach
Subject: RE: NPC's Binding
> -----Original Message-----
> From: silky@... [mailto:silky@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 1:16 PM
> To: eqbards@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [eqbards] NPC's Binding
>
>
> From: silky@...
>
>
> 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!
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> >
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
> http://www.onelist.com
> See homepage for details on ONElist's new "FRIENDS & FAMILY" program.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>