Bind Wound in combat is actually a good example. Trying to "prove" that combat Bind Wound did not exist back in the day is basically impossible, just like it's impossible to prove that GINA did not exist. Because in both cases the best evidence that neither existed is the sheer absence of evidence that either did.
For example, my first EQ character was a Human Monk created shortly after Kunark released. I used to spend a ton of time browsing the old Monkly Business forums to learn about the class. There was an enormous amount of time and effort the Monk community put into testing and aggregating data about the best ways to play a Monk, from pulling to DPSing to soloing. Bind Wound was always emphasized as a core skill, especially for soloing Monks. And soloing itself was heavily discussed, with various techniques (i.e. whether or not to use Instill Doubt/Intimidation while soloing), specific zone and efficiently soloable mobs always hot topics.
And yet this combat bind wound macro, which is literally the single most powerful solo tactic for a melee class, was NEVER mentioned. Not once. You will find no mention of it in any classic-era forum posts. And yet according to the rules of evidence, this is not sufficient proof to declare that it did not exist. We're in a similar spot with GINA. I think everyone recognizes that nothing like the current incarnation of GINA existed in classic, and yet we cannot prove that categorically, because it's very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative of this type.
|