Not sure about your server but my server has as many rogues as they do
necromancers. We also have a fair amount of warriors.
Naeeldar
-----Original Message-----
From: Kimes, Dean W. <
Dean_Kimes@...>
To: '
eqbards@onelist.com' <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>From: "Kimes, Dean W." <Dean_Kimes@...>
>
>I'd have to seriously disagree that there is a 50/50 split in binders and
>non-binders. Its not even close to that. If the classes were split
evenly,
>7 classes could bind and 7 cannot. Which binding class has as few members
>as the rogue class? None I suspect. The warrior class? Another big none.
>The bard class? Another big none.
>Shaman's maybe? How many 6 person groups even have 3 non-binders and 3
>binders? One that I have been in and that was only cause it was two real
>tanks and 3 binders who needed a sixth. The rest have 2 tanking
non-binders
>and 4 casters. 2 healer types and 2 blasters or an echanter. I don't know
>what its like on Mith Marr, but on E'ci non-binders are a minority in
>hunting zones and a majority in cities. I half think Verant put in the
>anonymous thing just so no one could use hard numbers to prove people don't
>play melee/hybrid classes because of binding. The only people I know who
>aren't playing binders now are either bards or frankly are not swift enough
>to handle the complexity of playing a caster. Some of those are starting
to
>figure out Shamans. I just got an email from the only true tank in our
>group, a monk. He's putting his monk on the back burner to play his
Shaman.
>Guess I need a new group cause I sure can't tank for the lot of them now.
>Course, the cleric is nearly as good a tank as I am anyhow.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)
>[mailto:Michael.Garramone@...]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 4:27 PM
>To: 'eqbards@onelist.com'
>Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>
>
>From: "Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)" <Michael.Garramone@...>
>
>i didn't say it was one of the single abilities that would limit a class,
>but it is like all other abilities of other classes a deciding factor. if
>it were as important as you say, a large majority of the population would
>consist of players that can bind. i do not see this to be the case, and
>therefore i can not agree with you. the population is about 50/50 with
>players who can and can not bind. some people may use the binding ability
>to determine which class they will play, but most do not. therefore it
does
>not fall under brad's statement about balancing.
>
>Shada
>
>> From: "Kimes, Dean W." <Dean_Kimes@...>
>>
>> This is the first time I have ever rabidly disagreed with you
>> Michael. Brad
>> has stated on numerous occassions that it is their concept of
>> the game that
>> "No single ability should play a major decision in a person's
>> decision to
>> play a particular class or group thereof. If it does it is
>> unbalancing and
>> needs to be changed."
>
>>