Heh believe me once you get over 35 or so the exp loss is a huge penalty and
it takes some time to gain the exp back.
Naeeldar
-----Original Message-----
From:
hho@... <
hho@...>
To:
eqbards@onelist.com <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 5:58 AM
Subject: [eqbards] RE: Hey this sounded interesting.. *Time to KABOING??*
>From: hho@...
>
>Woah,
>Things have been heating up inhere since I left work yesterday =). I will
just
>throw in my views on the most debated subjects...
>
>I think the melee/hybrid/caster thread needs to be kaboinged.. now.
>And the bind thread should IMO go the same way, but first I would like to
>support and back Shada's point of view. I am a casual player who have been
>playing since day one of p4 beta I also only play a few hours a day and is
>nowhere near Shada's levels (Never played a char that could bind). I have
also
>been playing my bard since April or so. That said I still agree with Shada
that
>binding should be keept the way it is or even changed so that casters are
>limited to binding themselves in cities too.
>
>Running back to your corpse is a penalty for dying just as the exp loss is.
The
>exp loss is not a very harsh penalty unless you die several times in a row.
So
>IMO the only real penalty is the hazzle of running back to your corpse.
>If there wasent a penalty like this the game would turn into something very
>boring. I for one cant figure out any penalty that I would "like" better
than
>running back? Bigger exp loss? Loss of equipment? stat penalties?
>I like it the way it is, EQ is not an easy game thats why it still dont
bore me.
>
>This hazzle is not even that bad with the bard because of the running speed
IMO.
>where as with my shadowknight its more tedius because of his slow running
speed
>and the fact that guards and merchants dont like him much, and even then if
its
>really far away I can useually find a friendly person to cast sow on me.
>
>As to bards being able to bind?? No I really dont like that idea. With
selo's we
>are pretty well off for travelling and giving bards bind will seriusly
overpower
>unless it was made useless by giving it penalties.
>I really dont understand people who have troubles finding anyone to bind
(exept
>in Erud offcourse), and I even play from europe which means that most of my
time
>online there is < 1000 players online (bertox server).
>
>Well these are my views - Feel free to disagree ;o)
>
>Best regards and KABOING TO ME
>
>Musiker Silverdrum level 21 woodelf bard
>Bagkal level 10 Troll Shadowknight.
>
>
>
>
>Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:55:36 -1000
> From: "Reece, Tom - 25IDL G4" <g4mntofcr@...>
>Subject: RE: Hey this sounded interesting..
>
>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.
>>
>>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>>