[Next Message in Time] | [Previous Message in Time] | [Next Message in Topic] | [Previous Message in Topic]

Message ID: 6272
Date: Thu Sep 9 19:17:13 BST 1999
Author: Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)
Subject: RE: Instruments vs. Melee quandry


no prob, i know its not a flame, i like the discussion. but as far as my
character, i don't have all the spiffy items yet, and i still have fun with
her and don't see the point of retirement. in fact, my point is that adding
new zones for level 50 characters benefits everyone else. like i said, when
fear was open we were out of your hair. and these aren't essentially new
zones, they have always been there and intended on opening but they haven't
gotten to it yet. opening these zones has always been in verant's plan for
the game. so with these zones to be opening soon and the expansion, i do
think it is in verant's plans to have these characters around for a long
time. hurry up and kabong me Talies before it's too late! =P

Shada

> From: "Steven S. Klug" <sklug@...>
>
> Heh, don't misconstrue my email as a flame. I certainly have nothing
> personal against you or any other 50th level character. I'm simply
> debating the philosophy behind playing a level 50 character,
> and whether
> Verant really ever intended people to play maxxed out
> characters for very
> long. I merely assert that it may be time for Shada (not
> you, but Shada)
> to go into the hallowed halls of the legendary bards that
> achieved that
> pinnacle of power. If you've gotten all the spiffy items,
> and done all the
> spiffy quests in the game, what's the point? Roleplaying?
> Sure, but that
> can be done with ANY level character.
>
> Yes, it would be great if they raised the level cap and came up with a
> bunch more zones for >= 50th level characters, but not at the
> expense of
> all the people that aren't that high. We ALL knew there was
> a level 50 cap
> when we started this game, so we can't use the "we're paying for this
> service" argument.
>
> In any case, this isn't particularly bard specific. So I'll leave the
> discussion at that.
>