[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 3567
Date: Wed Jul 14 19:50:55 BST 1999
Author: Kimes, Dean W.
Subject: RE: NPC's Binding
>From: "J.M. Capozzi" <croak63@...>require
>
>
>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
>a then hard to find and costly stone to cast.self
>
>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
>bind anywhere besides in an adventure zone came up.It
>
>So, I wouldn't ever expect any of the hybrid classes to be able to bind.
>is not going to happen, it's something of a concession that bind even worksnegative
>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
>reaction from many members of the development team, a schism if you will.(but
>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
>much too late imho, the damage was done)game's
>
>In the case of experience loss, the changes were made to help out the
>actual market. The mass market, RPG newcomer. The game is complex byand
>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
>still persist. After a bit of this, people start to vote with their feet.time
>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
>this is not the case is when a fresh server comes online, and the race toup
>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
>there as the most requested changes to the game. One happened, one won't.a
>
>----- 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
>> >nice limit for the NPC's. Make sense to me if you want to foster a senseplat,
>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
>> players could still undercut the merchants, but other players wouldn't be--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>> 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!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>