Soulbinders?

[Kika Maslyaka]

Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In all my years in EQ, I never played a binding class above L20. I still managed to raid and experience tons of content.

But, I'll indulge your "the haves vs. the have nots".

- Its casters that always have to sit and med while melees get to fight a mob from 100% -- 0%.
- Its casters that always have to scavange for armor while the melees get awesome armor sets.
- Its melees that get game-changing clickies like warriors getting shrink, invis, and a healing clicky or rangers with free summoned arrows.
- Its casters that, for the entire life of classic, have inferior DPS to melees.
- Its casters that have to wait for the melees to arrive before they can start doing anything, so they aren't gaining anything by being an ass to the warrior thats running those 3 zones you mention.

This game is NOT balanced in the way WoW is balanced. STOP trying to shoehorn YOUR ideas of balance on this game. If you want the type of balance you are discussing, go back to your newer MMOs. I want this kind of balance, so I'm here. If you want some other kind of balance, look somewhere else.

you are confused here - i am NOT trying to change your game- this discussion about design flaws, instabilities and imbalances. If you don't see it that way, you can leave the discussion.

and no, WoW is not balanced neither, if that makes you happy =P

[bruno.sardine]

Any discussion of "haves" vs "have-nots" comes down to the fact that you know what your class can and cannot do at character creation. You don't arbitrarily pick a class with your eyes closed, you pick them because you think it'd be fun to play.

If being able to cast Gate and Bind Affinity are that important, play any one of the SEVEN classes that can cast it. For those keeping track at home, that's fully half of the available classes. If you don't want to play a caster, then accept that you can't and enjoy your class in spite of its supposes "limitations".

Classic Everquest was NEVER about balance or fairness. I could list about a hundred different ways in which Classic EQ isn't fair or balanced. Classic Everquest was, at heart, a role-playing game. It came from the same mindset as Dungeons and Dragons. That being said, it wouldn't make sense for a Warrior, say, to be able to cast a spell to bind his soul to a certain location. You have to decide whether the character you want to play is able to cast spells, or is evil, or can pick pocket. Homogenization doesn't make for a fun game. You have to decide what limitations and what powers your character has because nobody is forcing you to play one class or another, or to play the game at all.

The reason Classic EQ lost its feel was precisely because the developers started trying to make things fair and balanced. Everyone being able to port to the Nexus if they waited at a Scion was an example. PoK and how all the guards are neutral is another.

tl;dr: Classic EQ is and hopefully always will be about living with your choices and weighing your pros against your cons. It's up to you to decide where your characters' priorities lie.

[Eggborn]

I can't wait to get into this! Still contemplating if I want to be an SK again. I might go Troll this time, instead of lizard, but .. I really like being a lizard. Anyway....

What about getting someone to bind you at the fire pots? It's a long swim, but the dragon isn't usually there. Those are Kunark era, they should work.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by bruno.sardine [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Any discussion of "haves" vs "have-nots" comes down to the fact that you know what your class can and cannot do at character creation. You don't arbitrarily pick a class with your eyes closed, you pick them because you think it'd be fun to play.

If being able to cast Gate and Bind Affinity are that important, play any one of the SEVEN classes that can cast it. For those keeping track at home, that's fully half of the available classes. If you don't want to play a caster, then accept that you can't and enjoy your class in spite of its supposes "limitations".

Classic Everquest was NEVER about balance or fairness. I could list about a hundred different ways in which Classic EQ isn't fair or balanced. Classic Everquest was, at heart, a role-playing game. It came from the same mindset as Dungeons and Dragons. That being said, it wouldn't make sense for a Warrior, say, to be able to cast a spell to bind his soul to a certain location. You have to decide whether the character you want to play is able to cast spells, or is evil, or can pick pocket. Homogenization doesn't make for a fun game. You have to decide what limitations and what powers your character has because nobody is forcing you to play one class or another, or to play the game at all.

The reason Classic EQ lost its feel was precisely because the developers started trying to make things fair and balanced. Everyone being able to port to the Nexus if they waited at a Scion was an example. PoK and how all the guards are neutral is another.

tl;dr: Classic EQ is and hopefully always will be about living with your choices and weighing your pros against your cons. It's up to you to decide where your characters' priorities lie.

Whether or not the rest of your points are correct or not, EQ lost its feel because: a) it got old with increasing baggage concerns b) SOE invested in EQ2, free realms, and now EQnext - they gave up on eq and settled with milking the remaining players b) other mmorpgs kept coming out and pulling potential new players in their direction, away from eq. SOE has a bad habit of abandoning games or impulsively changing them.

EQ declined and a lot of these changes were the response. Pok books were not added because the designers had a change of heart. They added pok books because the world was getting too big and too spread out and because there were less and less players to port you. Players took LONGER to travel from point A to point B. So they added the pok books. It's not rocket science. It's actually very simple. EQ suffered far more severely from lack of funding, lack of advertising and lack of interest from SOE than it ever did from a change of heart.

These kinds of arguments i've seen before. It's like people who say the game got easier. Umm, not really. It has got easier in the lower levels, but that's because new players are almost always alone and there're increasing amounts of levels/aa's to get. So the pace is more rapid. Duh. At the high levels, the game is still hard and bitchy. People need to upgrade their BS detector or something or play if they haven't.

I last played live in feb 2010. So don't tell me I don't know the game. I was lvl 85. Had some low lvl non-twinked alts too that I leveled to 38-51. I never boxed on live. So I got a good review of Eq1 up till last year.

I know classic EQ too. I started in march 1999. I made another ranger in late 2001.

EQ is a dying game. That's probably the biggest reason we see the changes we see. When you look at industry, it's all about money and then talent. With a game like this, no one is wanting to invest in it. It's too old. Even I would invest in a newer game. For the truth of the matter, witness the power (or lack thereof) of old age.

I had to live through all these years. I had to feel the pain. I was angry (in a misguided way) at a lot of things I see others here being angry about. I suspect it's just growing pains. Maybe one day we'll all understand and be on the same page. Or maybe we'll all for eternity be on separate pages, always arguing and fighting to agree on something. We live in a big, changing world. It's not a surprise that this happens. So it goes...

[baalzy]

Int casters have a 10% xp penalty, to split hairs.

Seriously, Kika, shut up. You're pretty much the only person who has a major problem with melee not being able to bind while casters can.

[falkun]

Originally Posted by baalzy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously, Kika, shut up. You're pretty much the only person who has a major problem with melee not being able to bind while casters can.

Thanks for saying what I was too polite to.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Originally Posted by baalzy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Int casters have a 10% xp penalty, to split hairs.

Seriously, Kika, shut up. You're pretty much the only person who has a major problem with melee not being able to bind while casters can.

1. no, not the only one, don't indulge yourself
2. i don't have a "major problem" I am sharing my view on a game design
3. You can shut up now, if don't enjoy reading what I have to say. or don't read

[baalzy]

1) Firepots aren't a dungeon, so only casters or people using items with Bind Soul could bind at them.
2) Nobody can bind at the firepots anymore, this was only available for the first week of Kunark.

[Mcbard]

There are a couple of people in this thread that seem to be playing the wrong game.. or at the very least playing on the wrong server. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Malrubius]

Originally Posted by Mcbard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are a couple of people in this thread that seem to be playing the wrong game.. or at the very least playing on the wrong server. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kind of what I was about to say when I saw that this thread was still going for some reason.

There don't have to be any losers in this discussion! If you want Soulbinders, play on *any* other EQ server and you have them. Seems kind of...passive aggressive...to keep coming to the forums for this one server, and continually whining about their perceived benefits.

No bind for you! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]