On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Blair, Keith (Keith Blair) wrote:
>
> > Your group is going to regret this decision at later levels.
>
> Here we are again with the "later level" comments.
>
> To me, anything over 20 *is* the later levels. If I
> don't like a class by that point, I'm outta there. It
> takes the average player a long time to get to 20 or
The nature of the game changes as you gain levels. I don't
believe it's entirely due to (malicious) intent by Verant
either - stuff like class balance in a level-based game isn't
the easiest thing to anticipate at the design or even beta
phase. You can rant and rave all you like about how much you
hate it, but it will probably always be there.
> above. Why should they spend months unhappy just to
> hope that one day things might be better?
You don't have to spend months unhappy. If you don't like it,
don't do it. I agree it's unfortunate that they didn't list
out all the strengths and weaknesses of the classes at
different levels in the manual, but I honestly believe even
Verant didn't really know what these strengths and weaknesses
would be in the final release version of the game.
> You don't do it in real life given a choice, nor should
> you have to in a game you're supposed to be playing to
> HAVE FUN in.
Real life isn't level-based.
> If someone hates the way something works, very rarely
> does "wait, it will get better" offer them any comfort
> or reason to continue.
Ok, let me rephrase what I said: Having a well balanced group
becomes more important at later levels. I wasn't telling you
to wait because it'll get better. I was simply saying that
casters may seem to be the best class to play at lower levels,
but at high levels it's important to have a tank or four, to
enlighten you to a potential mistake you could be making now
because level-based systems suck.
> > change in the 30s.
>
> Personally speaking, I'll have given up my bard long
> before I ever come close to that level. It's already
> starting to lose it's luster to me at 18. I keep,
If you and your friends are never going to reach the 30s, then
there's no point to planning that far ahead. You will do fine
playing (mostly) casters. I don't see Verant fixing the
caster/melee imbalance at low levels; if anything they've
actually made it worse since release.
> that? All the other players I play have bind. If I
> remember correctly, wasn't it you John that said (awhile
> ago on this list) that if you started over you'd never
> play a non-binding class again? (grin)
Wasn't me. I honestly don't care about binding except when
that stupid boat trip is involved. I've played in the Karanas
while bound in Freeport. I've played in Cazic bound in Halas.
Heck, a lot of times I don't even remember where I'm bound.
The bard is the non-binder *least* affected by this issue.
> impressed. Maybe it's just because I've never used
> them before. *shrug* But that combined with not being
> able to bind make the class that less interesting.
Obviously being able to bind is of paramount importance to
you, while it isn't to others. Either play classes who can
bind, or complain to Verant about it. While the discussion
here has been stimulating, it's all pointless if Verant never
sees it. There's not much to gain arguing it with us.
--
John H. Kim
kim@...