Spells: Togor's Insects should cap at 60% slow

[Rygar]

Apparently before Kunark came out there was talk about 'nerfing' Togor's Insects, because if it was allowed to scale up as is with ever level, then there wouldn't be much need for a better slow (or the slow would need to be more powerful).

They originally were going to nerf the slow by reducing it by 5% effectiveness and keeping it capped at 50, but I believe the final decision was to leave it as is at 50, but cap it in the spell database.

This means that what you see in the SPDAT file is:
Decrease Attack Speed by 49% (L39) to 70% (L60)

However, it should really cap at 60% at level 50 and not progress further (despite what it says).

They were thinking of doing this with a strength buff too initially but wound up scrapping that.

Here is evidence to that effect:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010822...ve/arc99.shtml

Gordon Speaks on Shaman Changes
On the Gameplay board, Gordon Wrinn made the following post regarding the Shaman class:

Hello all,
We just got out of our tuning meeting for this week. I did want to talk a bit about the Shaman changes that occurred on Test last week, and let you know about our plans for the production servers:

Strength: Last week we changed this spell on test to limit its effect and bring it in line with other 49th level shaman stat buffs. However, today we decided to leave it as it is on the production servers.

Togor's Insects: Despite the fact that information was changed in the spdat.eff file, the maximum effectiveness of the spell didn't change. This is another case where something that was previously controlled in code was moved to the spell database. Those parsers really only show half the picture.

Check the UltraDeath spells (1, 2, & 3) for details.

-Gordon

Afterwards, Gordon dropped by the same thread again and responded to some of the player's comments:

Didn't Abashi say that Togors *was* reduced? Maybe part of the problem is that he doesn't know everything, doesn't get told everything, so we get the wrong information sometimes. How many times is it going to happen, though?

We don't get everyone on the EQ Team together every time a question comes up on the boards. Once a week, we have tuning meetings, where we do get everyone together. At today's tuning meeting, we found out that the change made to the spdat.eff didn't have any effect on the spell since it was being controlled in code. The control for this spell will be turned over to the spell database shortly, since code-controlled caps have to be adjusted to make room for levels above 50.

Here's the second response Gordon made:

You say "the maximum effectiveness of the spell didn't change" does this mean that Togor's is still as effective as it was before at 50th level? OR Is the maximum effect still the same, just reached at higher levels (i.e. 60)?

The former. The spells effectiveness hasn't changed at 50th level.

This type of thing is going to be happening with a number of spells as time goes on. Many spells have a base effect, plus an additional effect per level. Since max level in the game is currently 50, the level caps the effect of the spell. However, when the max level is raised, the spell would be allowed to continue improving automatically up until the next max level. The resulting value from the linear improvement is often too high for the mana and casting time. As such, caps have to be noted specifically within the spell database.

-Gordon

Here's the fourth:

Let me clarify again, and I'll try not to leave any room to be misinterpreted:

ON PRODUCTION CURRENTLY:

The spell is capped by code.

ON TEST CURRENTLY:

The spell is capped by the spell database.

-Gordon

Here are some earlier comments before the above was posted:

Togor Issues
I understand where you are coming from, and you make a lot of sense. The issue is that an upgrade to Togor's is planned for the expansion, and it will *probably* be better than the this one was. However the level to which that would have been better would be too small to be worthwhile had Togors not been adjusted.

Strength has a similar issue, except its problem was a pure error in the entry of spell data as opposed to an overpowering, as in Togor's case. To illustrate this, a spell can have X effect, plus Y effect per level. When these spells were being entered in batch, the previous spell that was added had a "Y" value, but a much lower value of X. When Strength was put in, the existing Y value wasn't reset to its default value.

Note the concern about spells being too close in effectiveness, Togor's currently has 70% effectivenss at 60, Turgurs has 75% effectiveness.

I tested this by having a 60 shaman slow a mob with Togors vs Turgurs, and the effectiveness seemed to mimic the wiki posted values.

Here is some even earlier commentary where they were debating decreasing the level 50 effectiveness by 5% (which was later scrapped per above):

Shaman Issues
These are some compelling arguments about the shaman spells. I'll bring them up at the tuning meeting. What will happen if we decide not to change them is that you might not get as many spells as were planned in the expansion, but it's a thought.

Be honest with me for a second, is the shaman class really "destroyed" by a 5% ranged reduction in the attack-speed slowing of Togor’s and a 20-some point reduction in Strength?

As far as when this change occurred, I believe it to be between 3/6/2000 and 3/30/2000

He later posted this on 3/30/2000, so I believe it was in effect by then:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010822...ve/arc98.shtml

More on Togor/Code Issues
The entry in the data file didn't matter before, as it was all controlled in code. It's now controlled by the spell database, because the code-cap had to be raised to allow for new spells that do more. Thats why the controlling factor was moved.

Please read that closely. I've explained it many times.

I should point out that there is other evidence for effects like this being capped regardless of the SPDAT file, as Aalderon had pointed out in his thread about Cinda's Charismatic Carillon having a cap of 300 faction instead of what is shown in the SPDAT to have a 610 cap at level 60.

Let me know if any further research would be needed to implement this change. Thank you!