Miriana wrote:

>
> My argument isn't that melee classes NEED bind, but that bind SHOULD be
> able to work on melee classes. Binding in city zones only was a quick-fix
> to the problem of malicious binds.
> I quite agree. There is no supportable reason in game-logic to permit casters to

bind anyone in a city and themselves only anywhere else. This was a nerf, and it
is a nerf that Verant has demonstrated is not necessary (since they have the
ability to ask for player consent). Incidentally, the term "malicious" binding
overdramatizes (and underestimates) the problem. The problem for me has alway been
kindly but unasked for binding. Casters repeatedly make the assumption that I must
want to be bound to the city that they consider "closest" to where the group is
headed, and will often bind me without asking. Yes, if I was in a steady group, I
could work this out. Some of us are not so lucky.

As for all of the contributors to this list who have insisted that Verant will
never change their policy, rendering this discussion moot, I suggest that you take
some basic business courses. Verant offers a consumer product with a large variety
of options; if their customer base really dislikes one of the options, VERANT WILL
CHANGE IT. They would be idiots not to! And, as consumers, we would be idiots not
to complain when we see something we dislike.

Three of my four characters are my Bard and two pure melee characters. I do not
pick characters on the basis of the Bind spell, I happen to like melee characters
enough to play them anyway. But I still think the way that Bind currently works is
both unfair and logically insupportable, and it should be changed.

Kenross Cantoforjado, 27 songs, Innoruuk