Well I hate to say this but at high levels when you can get revived in so
forth casters take a big penalty with medding. For the most part a casters
life at high levels in cast a spell and then go back to medding. Why because
with a healer a tank has no down time and sincem ana takes so long to regain
most of the time your stuck with your head in a book. I play both a paladin
and a Necromancer as my main characters and while you get bored running
around I guaruntee you it's a lot more fun in battle and in dungeons for you
then your caster friends.
Naeeldar
-----Original Message-----
From: Reece, Tom - 25IDL G4 <
g4mntofcr@...>
To: '
eqbards@onelist.com' <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>From: "Reece, Tom - 25IDL G4" <g4mntofcr@...>
>
>Shada: what you say in your last sentence sums up the whole issue. For me
>at least, the time spent travelling back to your corpse from multiple zones
>away is not fun and completely boring. That time could be better spent
>adventuring, which is the fun part of EQ to me. Lets say on average it
>takes you 15 minutes to get back to your corpse. If you could get bound in
>non-cities, the amount of EXP you could gain during those 15 minutes is
>nowhere near the amount you lost when you died. However, you get to spend
>that 15 minutes playing the game in whatever manner makes it fun for you.
>IMO, the binding issue isn't a class balance issue but a "Is this really
>what I want to be spending my valuable game time doing" issue. Don't take
>any offense, but based on the fact that you have a 50th level character and
>two 20+ level characters, you obviously have more time to devote to playing
>EQ than I do. My only character is my 23d level bard and I've been playing
>him since April. That gives you a pretty good idea how much time I get to
>play. As I have said before, for casual gamers who don't get to play EQ
>that much, not being able to bind in non-cities has a major impact. When I
>die, that pretty much writes off the rest of the gaming session for me.
>Thats why I support a change to the policy.
>
>Galtin of E'ci
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas) [SMTP:Michael.Garramone@...]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 1:25 PM
>> To: 'eqbards@onelist.com'
>> Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>>
>> From: "Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)" <Michael.Garramone@...>
>>
>> sorry i don't see the connection. i advocate not letting melee/hybrid
>> classes to be able to bind, making the game harder. how does that make
it
>> easier to "win" or have anything to do with what you said?
>>
>> no one likes dying, not just some folks. that's the point, it is bad to
>> die. if there were no consequences, there would be no challenge. is
this
>> what you are referring to, my point of the game being a challenge? this
>> has
>> nothing to do with wanting to win, it has only to do with wanting to have
>> fun, and not being bored. it is after all a game, and if you are not
>> having
>> fun, you shouldn't be playing.
>>
>> Shada
>>
>> > From: silky@...
>> >
>> >
>> > Some folks just don't like dying - that in and of itself is
>> > enough of a
>> > penalty, thank you very much.
>> >
>> > This is where the paradigm falls back to singlemindset games
>> > - that there
>> > has to be a way to 'keep score' - that puts the emphasis on
>> > advancement and
>> > competition with others - instead of living in the world, and
>> > working with
>> > others.
>> >
>> > You cannot 'win' in a persistent world - nor should the goals be
>> > artificially propped up to encourage that attitude.
>> >
>> > One of EQs major shortcomings - is there is a perceived
>> > 'end'. Games - read
>> > 'worlds' of this nature are going to have to mature past the
>> > singleplayer
>> > game mindset baggage they have towed along with them, for
>> > these worlds to
>> > truly reach their full potential.
>>
>>
>>