Spells: Shaman DoTs Not Stacking Correctly

[Uthgaard]

Darthpeon already gave you the link. Your failure to read it is no one's problem but your own.

[Darwoth]

in all the time i played eq i never once had a shaman stack dots from the same line on me, so either your full of shit or every shaman on RZ and SZ from launch through velious were to stupid to stack dots which would have prevented me from curing.

[Castle]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Haha you got me man. That's a good one. Really though I will await your evidence. Ready when you are.

Just to clarify with people reading Uthgaard said

What you had before, where every dot stacked with any other dot, was the bug.

In regards to what the EQ devs had said.. Let's look for that information where all DoTs were always stacking...

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/hist...es-2002-2.html

We've made two changes to the way spells stack.

Damage Over Time (DoT) spells are spells that linger on the target
doing damage. Until today two different characters could not have the
same DoT spell on the same target. As long as one copy of the spell was
active any new version of the spell would not take hold. After today
the same DoT spell cast by different casters can affect the same target
at the same time. Also, if you cast a DoT spell on a target and you
already have that spell active on it, the spell will refresh. (Note: It
will not be possible to stack Lifeburn).

This does not allow for inferior spells to stack along with superior
spells. (Example: Two Necromancers can both land Boil Blood on the same
target. However, Heat Blood, being an inferior spell, will still not
stack.)

Yep... that's it. Read it though a number of times. He gives necros and their blood line as an example. That's it. Doesn't mention shamans or their DoTs once. I think I have clearly proven shamans don't have 2 "lines" of DoTs. They don't follow the pattern that every normal line of DoTs does. This is your evidence? With all due respect, it's laughable. I have 3 independent sources from 2001, one talking in great detail, about stacking these DoTs. There is no patch message anything changed and as it says here necro fire DoTs "...will still not stack..." meaning they weren't stacking at the point of this message. Nothing changed except you could not stack the exact same DoTs. It doesn't get any clearer than this. The only way to interpret it otherwise is to have a pro-dru/nec bias or anti-sham bias.

So (1) multiple sources some with very clear accounts/calculations (that have no reason to lie) are recorded as saying the DoTs stacked, (2) there are no replies contradicting these sources by any of the other shamans during that time period (who also have no reason to lie), (3) there is no patch message saying that DoTs always stacked, and (4) the only evidence provided mentions nothing of Shaman DoTs...

You only have one conclusion. Shaman DoTs always have stacked.

Darwoth.. As Uthgaard says...

No one posted a single thing about the dots stacking when they shouldn't have. No one posts about anything that gives them an advantage. But when it's a disadvantage, the forums get spammed with 'but I remember this!'

I do remember, but there are 3 independent unbiased sources versus this one semi-related patch message that doesn't address Shaman DoTs in any clear way.

Also Darwoth, people always used their highest level DoTs, so for most people it seemed to make more sense to go Plague/EBolt and once u got those 2 on you might as well nuke and heal, or at least that was the mindset I ran into with other shaman. 3 seemed overkill/waste of mana.

[Darwoth]

if i was a shaman and was able to stack dots every fight would open with lower end ones before the big dots to prevent people from curing them off immediately which is how the game ended up, i have to think at least a few of the shamans i encountered would of had the same idea.

[Castle]

Before I get to my haymaker punch of evidence let me address Darworth...

if i was a shaman and was able to stack dots every fight would open with lower end ones before the big dots to prevent people from curing them off immediately which is how the game ended up, i have to think at least a few of the shamans i encountered would of had the same idea

The longer you put off landing your heavy dmg DoTs the longer your opponent lives to heal themselves or kill you. It's ideal to put the lower level ones first, but no situation is ideal. I tried this when I PvP'd but it's best to rely on slam/pet to interrupt cures and just put on your heavy DoTs. Besides if I go disease and poison you have to have 2 cure different pots/spells ready. And if you cure more counters than needed it doesn't carry over to my disease counters being cured, whereas 2 poison DoTs it will carry over to cancel out the next one.

And now my mofrackin' haymaker of evidence

http://web.archive.org/web/200203050...ll.asp?Id=1184

STACKING, By Falkar the everwalker (1/28/2001)

Yes, this spell will stack with others. All DOT spells of the same type do stack.

Can it get any clearer?

From the same link...

DOTS, By Scratchen (1/28/2001)

When I started EQ I played an Enchanter and use to cast thier DOT (Damage over Time) spell over and over thinking that it worked like a DD (Direct Damage). Now EQ has a message that indicates when the spell wears off, but along with these messages came a nerf. DOTS require that the subject be still in order to have the full effect. So dont be fooled by old messages about casting this awesome dot and then running around with SOW or something. You wont get the damage out of this spell unless the critter is holding still, and this includes when they start walking away from you. Make sure you cast this spell toward the beginning and dont recast it like I did. ID Use Blind or the Frosty spell to pull a critter, and then once you have it in front of you, this spell casts fast enough to get it in between punches.

So everyone in the other posts who said they were stacking all received messages when DoTs wore off meaning if they overwrote the DoT they would know. This was the same time you got "did not take hold" message as well. This means whether they casted a higher or lower level spell they'd get a "wore off" or "did not take hold" message. It's highly unlikely all of these people could be that absentminded to grind 100s and 100s of mobs (with slow classic xp) and not notice these messages they receive every fight...

http://web.archive.org/web/200208110...ll.asp?Id=1114

ALL SHAMAN DOTS DO STACK
Posted: Sunday, May 05, 2002i have a lvl 20 shaman and my main is a 54 cleric. i have tried stacking all my dots onto myslef and the DO stack on myself other players and mobs. it is great at this lvl to stack all 3 of your dis dots you get.

Hmmm... pretty clear.

http://web.archive.org/web/200208110...ll.asp?Id=1114

SPELL STACKING
Posted: Friday, March 01, 2002All Shaman spells Stack. Period. so in theory, Sickness, Tainted Breath, Affliction, Evenomed Breath,Scourge,Venom of the Snake,Evenomed Bolt, Plauge,Bane of Nife,and Pox of Bertoxxulous can ALL BE ON ONE MOB AT THE SAME TIME. every spell wills tack, poison, disease, AE, WHATEVER. try stuff before you post stuff. I can guarantee you you have not played a shaman to 19, or have not tried stacking 3 DoTs at ONCE!!! Sorry, got a little hot headed... but I hate it when people say things they dont know, have not tried, and care not to try.

Lol this guy is experiencing exactly what I am. People just don't know and because they played a dru, nec, enc, etc... they assume..

http://web.archive.org/web/200208110...ll.asp?Id=1114

BLAH
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2002All of your different poison DoTs will stack as well as all of your different disease DoTs. But if you're grouped with another shaman both of your tainted breath's won't stack.

Clear as day. Uthgaard, thoughts?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]Who's hungry?

[Uthgaard]

By the time 2002 rolls around you'll be right. The server isn't at 2002. Shamans aren't one glowing exemption from the spell stacking rules. Trying to separate them from necros is even more laughable, as they don't even diverge from possessing a small set of necro spells until later levels.

Terribly sorry if you missed the memo that the date of the evidence is relevant. Or this old post (I know you saw it, because you lopped off the last 9/10 of it that you didn't want to acknowledge, particularly the underlined part)

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

No one posted a single thing about the dots stacking when they shouldn't have. No one posts about anything that gives them an advantage. But when it's a disadvantage, the forums get spammed with 'but I remember this!'

We don't just make changes to entire systems willy nilly. While some people are content to search the forums for the one quote from the mouth-breathing incompetent who posted something that contradicts what we did (and there's no shortage of conflicting information), we do our homework beforehand and look at all available sources to get the whole picture.

Imagine if someone 10 years from now wanted to determine the factual basis of which P99 forum troll had an emasculation complex, which one was a whore, which one was a cumguzzler and who really loved Glitch. You'll find points on all sides, finding conflicting information is a common occurrence in research, and 90% of development on p99 is research. The truth to one or another has to be weighed and evaluated.

Point being, if there are specific bugs, we'll hear them. But none of us want to sift through 10 pages of angsty anecdotes to find it.

[gloinz]

Imagine if someone 10 years from now wanted to determine the factual basis of which P99 forum troll had an emasculation complex, which one was a whore, which one was a cumguzzler and who really loved Glitch. You'll find points on all sides, finding conflicting information is a common occurrence in research, and 90% of development on p99 is research. The truth to one or another has to be weighed and evaluated


lol

[Smedy]

I like uthgaard, he should consider gm for the red99, he has the iron fist of justice

[Castle]

By the time 2002 rolls around you'll be right. The server isn't at 2002. Shamans aren't one glowing exemption from the spell stacking rules.

False. I am not arguing that 2 shamans casting the same DoT should stack. That was 2002 as is clearly stated. I am saying the earliest reports of whether or not each shaman DoT could stack with the other are a resounding YES... namely that...

Sickness, Tainted Breath, Affliction, Evenomed Breath,Scourge,Venom of the Snake,Evenomed Bolt, Plauge,Bane of Nife,and Pox of Bertoxxulous can ALL BE ON ONE MOB AT THE SAME TIME. every spell wills tack, poison, disease, AE, WHATEVER. try stuff before you post stuff. I can guarantee you you have not played a shaman to 19, or have not tried stacking 3 DoTs at ONCE!!!

..conclusively prove they did. You provide no conflicting evidence in regards to Shamans.

Trying to separate them from necros is even more laughable, as they don't even diverge from possessing a small set of necro spells until later levels.

False again. Your lack of EQ knowledge is disturbing. Shaman level 5 disease (sicken), Level 9 poison (tainted breath), level 19 disease (affliction) level 24 poison (envenomed breath) are all unique to Shamans. It's only some of the mid-level ones necros share. It's obviously not a line if you only get the middle section.

What line is the unique level 4 necro poison apart of?
What line is the unique level 1 necro dis apart of?
etc. etc. etc. They are individual spells not in a line.

Here's a good one... Infectious Cloud, the only AE DoT 1-60 in vanilla-velious, both Shaman and Necro get it. What line is it apart of? That's right, none. It's unique.

Terribly sorry if you missed the memo that the date of the evidence is relevant. Or this old post (I know you saw it, because you lopped off the last 9/10 of it that you didn't want to acknowledge, particularly the underlined part)

Your words don't really concern me with the veracity of this issue, but you're quoting yourself to prove your point?.... Lolz.

While some people are content to search the forums for the one quote from the mouth-breathing incompetent who posted something that contradicts what we did (and there's no shortage of conflicting information), we do our homework beforehand and look at all available sources to get the whole picture.

Let me summarize what you're saying there

Summary of Uthgaard's position: We have our sources, but we won't share them with you, but trust us. We are right. There are contradictions (that will not be named or linked), but we have 1 vague quote we are resting on.

What homework? You haven't posted anything except this poor excuse for evidence which does not address shamans. I provide clear evidence Shaman DoTs stacked poison with poison, disease with disease, before 2002.

The evidence is clear. You say can say it's "balance," but you can't argue it's classic.

PS

I like uthgaard, he should consider gm for the red99, he has the iron fist of justice

More like the iron skull of thickness. Someone too proud to admit they are wrong, or too stupid to see they are wrong, are unfit to be a GM. We will see if Uthgaard comes around to agree with the evidence or not; and if he will provide his own, or not.

[valithteezee]

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

Shamans aren't one glowing exemption from the spell stacking rules...

With all due respect, Yes they are. I'm not trying to be a troll and I appreciate all the work you have done for the community but evidence clearly paints a different picture. The entire reason of this post is to shed light on the fact that shamans ARE DIFFERENT then other DOT classes.

This does not allow for inferior spells to stack along with superior
spells. (Example: Two Necromancers can both land Boil Blood on the same
target. However, Heat Blood, being an inferior spell, will still not
stack.)

Again, nothing was mentioned of shamans in the above quote but leaves the reader to ASSUME that all dot classes are lumped into this change- thus your stance on the issue. However, Several posts confirm that in reality this was not the case for the shaman. Whether this was an unintended change or deliberate from the development teams perspective, this fact remains this is how it worked.