I'm going to have to agree Everquest is a game for people who have lots of
time on their hands. It's something the casual player is going to have to
either accept or move on.
Naeeldar
-----Original Message-----
From:
kim@... <
kim@...>
To:
eqbards@onelist.com <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>From: <kim@...>
>
>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@...
>
>>