Mage pets

[senseiRuss]

Exactly which mage pets were added to vendors? I know 34 water and earth, 39 fire and air, but what about 44+? Wanna check before I pay too much for words. Thanks!

[Dolalin]

Only the normal pets you would have on Blue server.

[Cen]

Does this include the OOT series of pets?

If so mages are gaurenteed great power now :p

[senseiRuss]

So fire at 44, and earth at 49?

[Erati]

So fire at 44, and earth at 49?

Yea

[turbosilk]

OOT pets were there from the start

[turbosilk]

Does this include the OOT series of pets?

If so mages are gaurenteed great power now :p

Yes mages are very powerful. I see people looking to add them to groups all the time as top dps. Oh wait, that doesn't happen.

[Siege]

Does this include the OOT series of pets?

If so mages are gaurenteed great power now :p

You can only buy those pets up to level 20. After that you need to research whatever pets aren't on a vendor.

[Obrae]

if mages arent top dps who is?

Enchanters, by a very large margin.

[turbosilk]

Followed by monks and rogues if you go by who people are looking for to fill dps spots.

[loramin]

if mages arent top dps who is?

Enchanters, by a very large margin.

Because that is the classic everyone who played on live remembers :rolleyes:

[turbosilk]

you mean enchanters charmed pets?

monks and rogues in classic are garbagio

Yet the perception is monks and rogues are more dps than mages and necros and are generally sought out for groups and mages and necros and wizards aren't.

[Tethler]

Yet the perception is monks and rogues are more dps than mages and necros and are generally sought out for groups and mages and necros and wizards aren't.

Enchanters getting clarity should help the other casters to push a bit more dps out now too.

[turbosilk]

Caster dps is significantly higher than melee before clarity. This still doesn't change the perception that rogues and monks are the top dps to bring into groups over mages, locks and wiz.

I've been in these melee groups, mobs die painfully slow in comparison to having int casters filling the dps roles.

[bum3]

Yet the perception is monks and rogues are more dps than mages and necros and are generally sought out for groups and mages and necros and wizards aren't.

that was classic mentality yes... here on p99 it's the opposite. Specially now that mage pets are on vendors... so many groups that want to just run tank, 3 pet classes, ench, cleric/shaman.

[Siege]

that was classic mentality yes... here on p99 it's the opposite. Specially now that mage pets are on vendors... so many groups that want to just run tank, 3 pet classes, ench, cleric/shaman.

From my experience on both Blue and Green, nobody really cares which classes fill each role. I've never come across anyone min-maxing class composition when a camp opens up. People generally take what they can get in whatever zone they're in and send tells to fill whatever spots are still open. Anyone who asks to join a group when it's full are generally put on a list and rotated in as people leave. You might have some larger guilds that try to monopolize camps by only rotating in people from their guild, but that's just the nature of Classic EverQuest's open world design. Zerg guilds are going to dominate any MMO that doesn't have instancing.

[azeth]

Rogues in classic are the epitome of the tortoise v. hare story. They are just sustained, uninterrupted DPS compared to the enchanter's risky DPS & mana sponge qualities.

Enc is clearly the hare, and unlike the fable will likely win the race. But there's value in a sustained, non-mana using, no risk DPS that rogue offers in classic.

[derpcake2]

Because that is the classic everyone who played on live remembers :rolleyes:

Have you considered how stupid this statement is?

This server isn't about what people *remember*

You seem to have missed that, despite your obvious involvement.

I'm still not certain if you are excessively stupid, or just a really good troll, so please reply.

[Polycaster]

Caster dps is significantly higher than melee before clarity. This still doesn't change the perception that rogues and monks are the top dps to bring into groups over mages, locks and wiz.

I've been in these melee groups, mobs die painfully slow in comparison to having int casters filling the dps roles.


Only in shitty groups. In a fast-paced group it's all about the sustainable 0 mana dps. Try ghoul lord with 3 clerics in the group; you can go afk while they med for the next nuke.

[bum3]

From my experience on both Blue and Green, nobody really cares which classes fill each role. I've never come across anyone min-maxing class composition when a camp opens up. People generally take what they can get in whatever zone they're in and send tells to fill whatever spots are still open. Anyone who asks to join a group when it's full are generally put on a list and rotated in as people leave. You might have some larger guilds that try to monopolize camps by only rotating in people from their guild, but that's just the nature of Classic EverQuest's open world design. Zerg guilds are going to dominate any MMO that doesn't have instancing.

That hasn't been my experience at all. And full groups always have 3 lists going. 1 for healer, 1 for tank, and 1 for dps. But most often you see most camps dominated by 1-3 people and not groups. And it's usually pet classes which includes enchanters. It's actually so bad now that when an enchanter joins a 40's group they don't CC because they think they are just suped up mages.

[tommydgun]

Lol what are people smoking thinking these casters are outdpsing rogues? My rogue at 31 backstabs for a high of 180 which is 0 mana and reused every what 10s? Quad attacks for high hits of 35. When I have haste especially how do you figure a caster is outdpsing me?

[RipVanFish]

Lol what are people smoking thinking these casters are outdpsing rogues? My rogue at 31 backstabs for a high of 180 which is 0 mana and reused every what 10s? Quad attacks for high hits of 35. When I have haste especially how do you figure a caster is outdpsing me?

As a mage, between my pet, my damage shield kept on the tank and dropping nukes, I feel like I usually outpace rogue dps. Just my 2C.

[liquidki]

Caster dps is significantly higher than melee before clarity. This still doesn't change the perception that rogues and monks are the top dps to bring into groups over mages, locks and wiz.

I've been in these melee groups, mobs die painfully slow in comparison to having int casters filling the dps roles.

When I think about DPS as it pertains to the group role, I am thinking about sustained DPS. A caster can blow up a mob faster than a melee DPS, but then they need to sit down for a few minutes to refill their mana bar. During that few minutes the rogue or monk has been attacking nonstop while the caster contributes no damage.

[loramin]

Have you considered how stupid this statement is?

This server isn't about what people *remember*

You seem to have missed that, despite your obvious involvement.

I'm still not certain if you are excessively stupid, or just a really good troll, so please reply.

First off, my "obvious involvement" is only as a long-time player, poster, and wiki user.

But second, I have been here awhile, and I am very familiar with the server's goals and desire to have classic mechanics.

My post was pointing to the fact that, when you perfectly recreate 527 rules for any emulated system, and you're absolutely certain you got all 527 correct ... but whatever system you were trying to emulate still isn't behaving the same as its target, despite being given the same inputs ... then the obvious inference is that you're missing rule #528 which would make the system actually behave as the target.

Some argue the inputs changed, because players have more knowledge ... but live players weren't morons. We're talking about literally thousands of Live Enchanter players: they may have lacked perfect knowledge, but I just don't see why people would have failed to notice "if I cast this charm spell that's on my list and kind of core to my class's entire concept, I'm better at doing damage than any other class."

I believe the devs have done a spectacular job emulating classic EverQuest in nearly every way possible, which is a truly incredible feat. It's the work of two incredibly passionate project leads and a significant number of other volunteers who all gave countless hours of their time to write code for a server they personally could never play on. As a programmer myself I have nothing but respect for everything they've accomplished.

I just think that when Enchanters are the top DPS, it feels like rule #528 is missing.

[tommydgun]

wizards get conflag at 44 thats 600 dmg and with full mana they can cast it like 12 times

your damage is crap
Nice argument. Unfortunately you are comparing a 44 spell to a response about a 31 rogues dps. Look at a level appropriate spell. Also you cant nuke 12x in a row without drawing aggro but I can dps the whole time.

Try again. I know math is hard.

[Tecmos Deception]

but live players weren't morons. We're talking about literally thousands of Live Enchanter players: they may have lacked perfect knowledge, but I just don't see why people would have failed to notice "if I cast this charm spell that's on my list and kind of core to my class's entire concept, I'm better at doing damage than any other class."

People mostly didn't notice how effective charm was on P99 blue until the middle of kunark. Why is it such a stretch that barely anyone noticed in 1999-2001?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1781&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3994&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo&page=2

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7061&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8691&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9784&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo


These are the first handful of the oldest threads in the blue forums of a search including the words "enchanter," "solo," and "charm."

MOST of the people talking about enchanters think that they're mediocre solo, don't mention chanters as part of the best duos, sometimes didn't even realize that charm solo was an effective way to exp at all. Some people even post and say they remember having an easier time using charm on live than on P99. Almost everyone rates necro above chanter for solo, saying stuff like "chanters are for groups and buffs." NOBODY says "hey yo, my buddy is a chanter and solos freeti and lord and king to get rich and you can too!"


If the minority of people who played live and still were interested in classic EQ in 2010 barely understood/didn't understand enchanters... it only makes sense that FUCKING NO ONE did in 1999-2001.

Imo, until the solo artist challenge was front and center on the forums for months straight and people (you know, like me) started streaming/recording what chanters could do with charm, almost no one here understood what chanters could do. And seriously. If after a decade, in the minority of people who were so into classic EQ that they were still playing on a classic EMU in 2010, of that minority only a literal handful had a strong grasp of what a chanter was capable of... why in the world would you think more people would have understood 10 years earlier than that?

[loramin]

People mostly didn't notice how effective charm was on P99 blue until the middle of kunark. Why is it such a stretch that barely anyone noticed in 1999-2001?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1781&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3994&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo&page=2

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7061&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8691&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9784&highlight=enchanter+charm+solo


These are the first handful of the oldest threads in the blue forums of a search including the words "enchanter," "solo," and "charm."

MOST of the people talking about enchanters think that they're mediocre solo, don't mention chanters as part of the best duos, sometimes didn't even realize that charm solo was an effective way to exp at all. Some people even post and say they remember having an easier time using charm on live than on P99. Almost everyone rates necro above chanter for solo, saying stuff like "chanters are for groups and buffs." NOBODY says "hey yo, my buddy is a chanter and solos freeti and lord and king to get rich and you can too!"


If the minority of people who played live and still were interested in classic EQ in 2010 barely understood/didn't understand enchanters... it only makes sense that FUCKING NO ONE did in 1999-2001.

Imo, until the solo artist challenge was front and center on the forums for months straight and people (you know, like me) started streaming/recording what chanters could do with charm, almost no one here understood what chanters could do. And seriously. If after a decade, in the minority of people who were so into classic EQ that they were still playing on a classic EMU in 2010, of that minority only a literal handful had a strong grasp of what a chanter was capable of... why in the world would you think more people would have understood 10 years earlier than that?


... OR people on Live understood how to cast their spells, it's just that Live had different mechanics (in some way) which convinced people who tried it that it was a bad idea.

Maybe that mechanic was simply flaky internet connections, but personally I just don't see how that explanation or the "people were dumb and wouldn't try charming to see how great it was" explanations could realistically explain the vast difference between here and Live.

Going from "the mezzers" (which is how I feel everyone remembers them) to "the best DPS" solo or in group, is changing the class fundamentally: it's HUGE. If you're being intellectually rigorous with yourself and you find that those arguments do perfectly explain that major difference ... well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Tecmos Deception]

OR ... people on Live understood how to cast their spells ... BUT Live had different mechanics (in some way) which encouraged them not to. We'll have to agree to disagree as to which.

Your entire argument seems to be "if charm mechanics were the same on live as they are on p99, then it would have been widely known how powerful charm is. Nobody could have been playing with the mechanics we have today without realizing how to take advantage of them."

And that argument is proven to be horrible when I demonstrate how, even WITH the p99 mechanics, it wasn't widely known how to use a chanter for at least a couple years of blue's existence... and that it was only after a number of enchanters showed, very publicly, what chanters were capable of, that it started to be common knowledge.

You "agreeing to disagree" in face of that is you "being obtuse."


And this is ignoring the classic-era charm tests that have been discussed around here recently, classic-era guides that go into detail about how powerful charm, accepted fact that many things that make charming easier today weren't widely practiced back in the day (primarily GCD resets). And this is ignoring the fact that your argument is disproved by other things; GCD resets are incredibly strong and were present in classic and known of by some people... but they still weren't common knowledge then (and still weren't on P99 for years and years, iirc). This all just goes even further to support my position here. And all you've got is the single line of reasoning that is shot to pieces by all of this stuff.

[Erati]

I think people REALLY didnt want their characters to die on Live first time tru so all it takes is one quick charm break death to decide “not worth it”

The rewards were not known yet for that continued risk so why bother?

If you can kill and gain exp w o using charm which could kill you any moment, why would you bother w it at all. Its not til enchanters start solo ing the entire globe for pixel riches that you see the risk/reward of charm play out.

People also are much faster ab CR nowadays compared to our classic experience. Death happens and we move on, but first play tru each death was devastation.

[Tecmos Deception]

"people were dumb and wouldn't try charming to see how great it was"

Who has ever made that argument? I don't ever remember seeing anyone say this except for people like you claiming others have made it.

There's (very obviously) a difference between people on the whole being dumb and something taking time to become common knowledge and accepted practice. Again. My demonstrating that even on p99, it wasn't common knowledge what enchanters were capable of for years, totally cuts down your argument.

[loramin]

You "agreeing to disagree" in face of that is you "being obtuse."

Look, just because I don't agree with you that the thousands of Enchanter players on Live were too stupid to cast their class defining spell does not make me obtuse. Try to remember: when you read the manual and started playing, Enchanters were sold as the masters of mind control, ie. charmers ... Verant was not lke "play this class, you'll distract monsters while everyone else fights!". You had to play and discover that that was your reality as an Enchanter.

Yes "modern knowledge" like GCD or Goblin ring makes charm significantly more powerful. But even without those things ... I promise you, there are Enchanters right now, on Green/Teal, charming ... who have never even heard of GCD items.

Their lack of modern knowledge isn't what's stopping them from charming. Heck, if they don't know GCD we're probably talking about "fresh from live" players: they're default would be to think they can only mez. I posit that it's the lack of a classic mechanic which leads them to play differently here ... again, in a system with something like 98.5% super close if not perfectly accurate mechanics.

[Tecmos Deception]

Look, just because I don't agree with you that the thousands of Enchanter players on Live were too stupid to cast their class defining spell does not make me obtuse. Try to remember: when you read the manual and started playing, Enchanters were sold as the masters of mind control, ie. charmers ... it was not lke "play this class, you'll distract monsters while everyone else fights!". You had to play and discover that that was your reality as an Enchanter.

Yes "modern knowledge" like GCD or Goblin ring makes charm significantly more powerful. But even without those things ... I promise you, there are Enchanters right now, on Green/Teal, charming ... who have never even heard of GCD items.

Their lack of modern knowledge isn't stopping them from charming: I posit that it's the lack of a classic mechanic which is (again, in a system with something like 98.5% super close if not perfectly accurate mechanics)

Like I said a minute ago. If it was inevitable for people to figure out how to use chanters/charm so effectively with these mechanics, then why did blue exist for years and only end up with a surge in enchanters and charmers after the SAC and other chanter videos very publicly demonstrated it all?

Like I said a minute ago. If something like GCDs existed and was known by some people back in the day, why didn't everyone know about it?


If you can't explain away this stuff while continuing to believe as you do... yeah... that's why I called you obtuse. You're ignoring things that poke holes in your reasoning and just blindly carrying on.

Explain why I'm wrong instead of running in circles with your one argument.

[getsome]

People mostly didn't notice how effective charm was on P99 blue until the middle of kunark. Why is it such a stretch that barely anyone noticed in 1999-2001?

Having played on blue during the time period you are referencing your statement is wrong.

[Tecmos Deception]

Having played on blue during the time period you are referencing your statement is wrong.

There were like half as many chanters on blue in classic as there are on green. The old forums aren't full of discussions about how OP charm is like there are on green forums now. MY experience with blue classic was necros all over lguk, but not enchanters except at easier camps.

Those things don't mesh with it being common knowledge how to use enchanters effectively.

Note that I'm not claiming nobody knew. I'm claiming that few people knew.

[tommydgun]

The mobs dont summon you just root them, your damage is garbo because rogues miss 50% of the backstabs and of the ones they land 50% are not good dmg

miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss

sorry you are fat and bad

God you are a fucking idiot, but I'll bite. First thanks for the laugh, I'm extremely fit. Second, let's explain expected value of damage to you since you failed high school math. Let's assume you never get resisted. You nuke for 600 damage every 7.5 seconds if you include your global cooldown and cast time. That means you nuke for 1200 every 15 seconds. With haste I'm attacking every 2.2 seconds for a high value of 40+ damage and backstabbing every 6s for a high value at max level of 300 or so damage. Let's say I miss half the time. This works my expected value of a regular attack to 20 damage let's say and 150 on a backstab. In the time it takes you to cast and recover from 2 spells I've gotten off 7 rounds of attacks. If we assume only 3 attacks and no quads every round I'm doing 60 damage a round on autos and 150 on backstabs. This is 420 damage in auto attacks and 300 in backstabs conservatively. So sure that's 720 and I just said you do 1200 but you can nuke 12x before oom. That is 2 minutes of nuking. Then you have to med 100% which let's give you the benefit and say that takes you 2 minutes only to med 100%. That means your 1200 damage interval is really half up-time which means your average 2 rounds of attacks is 600. Btw 600 is less than 720. Get fucked you moron.

[bum3]

Lol what are people smoking thinking these casters are outdpsing rogues? My rogue at 31 backstabs for a high of 180 which is 0 mana and reused every what 10s? Quad attacks for high hits of 35. When I have haste especially how do you figure a caster is outdpsing me?

I'm going to call BS on this. My guild has 6 rogues in the 30s right now. I have grouped with all. None are BSing regularly for over 100 with SBDs and Poons. None have hit 180s. Quad attacks for high hits of 35.. sure but at 170 str most of your hits are low 20s.

Wife charms gypsy rogue in MM.. backstabs for 201.. quads for 70's (mostly hits 50s). rune sword procs 40.. But let just say Mage at 31... sure you can outdmg their pet. But even if mage nukes 1 per mob you just lost that dps race. Why? Because in a full group a single lvl 30-35 mob with a group of low 30s gonna kill the mob before rogue gets a 2nd backstab.. let alone 3.

I'd say you definitely can outdmg a cleric or druid. Wizard is iffy but probably not. I'm talking about mobs not raid bosses here.

[tommydgun]

I'm going to call BS on this. My guild has 6 rogues in the 30s right now. I have grouped with all. None are BSing regularly for over 100 with SBDs and Poons. None have hit 180s. Quad attacks for high hits of 35.. sure but at 170 str most of your hits are low 20s.

Wife charms gypsy rogue in MM.. backstabs for 201.. quads for 70's (mostly hits 50s). rune sword procs 40.. But let just say Mage at 31... sure you can outdmg their pet. But even if mage nukes 1 per mob you just lost that dps race. Why? Because in a full group a single lvl 30-35 mob with a group of low 30s gonna kill the mob before rogue gets a 2nd backstab.. let alone 3.

I'd say you definitely can outdmg a cleric or druid. Wizard is iffy but probably not. I'm talking about mobs not raid bosses here.

ill give you a chanter with a rogue pet is the most damage, but im sorry your guild rogues dont backstab hard... SBD isnt the best backstab weapon in the game, i personally use a gloomwater harpoon and have 220 str buffed

[turbosilk]

God you are a fucking idiot, but I'll bite. First thanks for the laugh, I'm extremely fit. Second, let's explain expected value of damage to you since you failed high school math. Let's assume you never get resisted. You nuke for 600 damage every 7.5 seconds if you include your global cooldown and cast time. That means you nuke for 1200 every 15 seconds. With haste I'm attacking every 2.2 seconds for a high value of 40+ damage and backstabbing every 6s for a high value at max level of 300 or so damage. Let's say I miss half the time. This works my expected value of a regular attack to 20 damage let's say and 150 on a backstab. In the time it takes you to cast and recover from 2 spells I've gotten off 7 rounds of attacks. If we assume only 3 attacks and no quads every round I'm doing 60 damage a round on autos and 150 on backstabs. This is 420 damage in auto attacks and 300 in backstabs conservatively. So sure that's 720 and I just said you do 1200 but you can nuke 12x before oom. That is 2 minutes of nuking. Then you have to med 100% which let's give you the benefit and say that takes you 2 minutes only to med 100%. That means your 1200 damage interval is really half up-time which means your average 2 rounds of attacks is 600. Btw 600 is less than 720. Get fucked you moron.

Compare your dps to a mage or necro maybe? If love to see that parse comparison.

[Sillyturtle]

Loramin I think rule 528 is simply that the internet landscape was not as developed. You didn’t have people using YouTube and showingg people how to do things. You probably just had people telling others via word of mouth things like “that enchanters are for messing this is what you do” and nobody experimented with things and couple that win the fact the live eq was advancing level caps and things much more quickly than p99 and you’re left with people not figuring things out because they don’t stay in an era long enough to discover the elite strategies and character quirks before moving on.

[loramin]

Loramin I think rule 528 is simply that the internet landscape was not as developed. You didn’t have people using YouTube and showingg people how to do things. You probably just had people telling others via word of mouth things like “that enchanters are for messing this is what you do” and nobody experimented with things and couple that win the fact the live eq was advancing level caps and things much more quickly than p99 and you’re left with people not figuring things out because they don’t stay in an era long enough to discover the elite strategies and character quirks before moving on.

I just don't find that that makes for a satisfying explanation of the very large delta.

It might explain part, but again, everyone started out wanting to charm, not distract monsters. It took some systemic force, beyond just "no Youtube", to guide them all into being mezzbots, and not solo charmers or group charmers. Whatever that force was, it's clearly absent here.

[Dreenk317]

I just don't find that that makes for a satisfying explanation of the very large delta.

It might explain part, but again, everyone started out wanting to charm, not distract monsters. It took some systemic force, beyond just "no Youtube", to guide them all into being mezzbots, and not solo charmers or group charmers. Whatever that force was, it's clearly absent here.

On my server, your whole group of 6 people were lucky to find a camp of 5 mobs to kill. Often saw groups content with 3 mobs only in a dungeon somewhere. Often camps weren't properly broken, and multiple mobs
would spawn close together, requiring CC.

It was just so busy back then, all the time. That, in my experience, I can recall multiple times that we asked the enchanter not to charm because it reduced our groups exp by holding up one of the spawns.

I'm not saying this is the reason, but it's a reason. Camps on p99 are much larger, containing, often, 10+ mobs, spawn timers are tracked, and a broken camp requires much less CC. So, here, on p99, enchanters can afford to charm in more ways than one, vs what was affordable on live.

[Sillyturtle]

I just don't find that that makes for a satisfying explanation of the very large delta.

It might explain part, but again, everyone started out wanting to charm, not distract monsters. It took some systemic force, beyond just "no Youtube", to guide them all into being mezzbots, and not solo charmers or group charmers. Whatever that force was, it's clearly absent here.

Maybe it’s a combination of things like that and what the free kick posted above me. Rule 528 could just be lots of little social things coupled with no YouTube and lack of easily accessible information that grew into a widespread “charm is bad” mentality.

That could be totallly wrong though and you could very definitely be right. That other guy you e been arguing with is a fucking asshole for speaking to you that way. Fuck him. No reason to act like that just because you disagree with someone.

[Tecmos Deception]

I just don't find that that makes for a satisfying explanation of the very large delta.

It might explain part, but again, everyone started out wanting to charm, not distract monsters. It took some systemic force, beyond just "no Youtube", to guide them all into being mezzbots, and not solo charmers or group charmers. Whatever that force was, it's clearly absent here.

I editted down to a TLDR of the entire debate:

You can refuse to be convinced by this. But you literally just keep running in circles with your ONE argument even as multiple reasonable explanations, some actual hard evidence, and some examples that don't work out the way you'd expect based on your logic, are all put forward. Every time one or two reasons are given, you ignore them and repeat yourself, and that's without even addressing the fact that over the course of time on here with people debating about charm, there have been like a dozen+ reasonable explanations for why charm was used differently on live than currently and that none of them have really been refuted. And those reasons aren't individual, they're cumulative.

No youtube, bad early experiences with charm, no knowledge of GCD, bad word of mouth from early charm experiences, old internet connections and computers, scarcity of mobs, general MMO noobiness, early mechanics that favored other methods (animations didn't steal exp, WTYH was OP as fuck, invis didn't break charm), relatively few enchanters playing at all let alone seriously trying charm out.... all those things add up to an enormous, "systemtic" force working against a large number of people figuring out charm back in the day.

[Tecmos Deception]

That other guy you e been arguing with is a fucking asshole for speaking to you that way. Fuck him. No reason to act like that just because you disagree with someone.

No you're a towel!

[derpcake2]

I wonder how many other threads Loramin is going to create or derail trying to get his feels-based agenda implemented.

[bum3]

ill give you a chanter with a rogue pet is the most damage, but im sorry your guild rogues dont backstab hard... SBD isnt the best backstab weapon in the game, i personally use a gloomwater harpoon and have 220 str buffed

I appreciate you admitting a caster is out dpsing you.

[loramin]

No youtube, bad early experiences with charm, no knowledge of GCD, bad word of mouth from early charm experiences, old internet connections and computers, scarcity of mobs, general MMO noobiness, early mechanics that favored other methods (animations didn't steal exp, WTYH was OP as fuck, invis didn't break charm), relatively few enchanters playing at all let alone seriously trying charm out.... all those things add up to an enormous, "systemtic" force working against a large number of people figuring out charm back in the day.

"Bad early experiences with charm" and "bad word of mouth from early charm experiences" are no different here than on live. And "relatively few enchanters playing at all let alone seriously trying charm out"? We're talking about literally multiple thousands of players.

Yes, I get that there was no Youtube, but there were class forums. As I've said before, even without Youtube Shaman knew how to cann dance back then. That required casting a spell on your list and timing it to coincide with a server mechanic. Charming is just casting a spell (and casting another to break it later): it's not rocket science.

Similarly you don't need GCD (or Gob ring) to use charm effectively; it's just not as effective without them. Their benefits are even less pronounced in groups, yet very few Enchanters even charmed in groups on live (when they had a healer).

Look, you're missing the point, my "one point" against you're many. I'm saying the math doesn't add up, and you're listing lots of variables.

I'm saying our delta is Enchanters going from being ranked one of the worst classes in the game DPS-wise, to the uncontroversial best here. That's a very large delta on the right side of the equation.

On the left you have different variables like say: time/player knowledge (A), internet connection speed (B), and differences between emulated mechanics and live ones (C).

What I keep repeating is very simple: A + B does not add up to that amazingly huge delta vs. live. You can divide A and B into however many subvariables you want, and altogether they might account for a delta of 4, maybe 5 classes, eg. Enchanters formerly being the 6th-best DPS on live, but here they're the 2nd-best.

But from bottom to top, only because of A and B? I just find that a difficult idea to swallow: I think there's got to be a C.

Remember, this is supposed to be about classic EQ. If you grabbed a player from 1999, and told them "hey we have this server, it's just like your's, but Warriors can bind wounds during combat and Bards can kill an entire zone at once", they'd look at you and say "no, that's not like our server". They wouldn't say "wow your players must be smarter to have figured that out" or "you must have a fast connection": they'd say "that sounds a bad emulation".

But both those things were supposedly mechanically possible back then. No one remembers them, but they were defended here for a long time as "people were just dumb back then and didn't know how". It wasn't that: no one remembered combat bind wounds, bards doing all of OT, or Enchanters even being in the top tier, let alone being the top DPS, because that wasn't how Live was.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

Your entire argument seems to be "if charm mechanics were the same on live as they are on p99, then it would have been widely known how powerful charm is. Nobody could have been playing with the mechanics we have today without realizing how to take advantage of them."

And that argument is proven to be horrible when I demonstrate how, even WITH the p99 mechanics, it wasn't widely known how to use a chanter for at least a couple years of blue's existence... and that it was only after a number of enchanters showed, very publicly, what chanters were capable of, that it started to be common knowledge.

You "agreeing to disagree" in face of that is you "being obtuse."


And this is ignoring the classic-era charm tests that have been discussed around here recently, classic-era guides that go into detail about how powerful charm, accepted fact that many things that make charming easier today weren't widely practiced back in the day (primarily GCD resets). And this is ignoring the fact that your argument is disproved by other things; GCD resets are incredibly strong and were present in classic and known of by some people... but they still weren't common knowledge then (and still weren't on P99 for years and years, iirc). This all just goes even further to support my position here. And all you've got is the single line of reasoning that is shot to pieces by all of this stuff.

I'll go ahead and disagree here. On Blue Launch you had Chanters Charm-DPSing right out the gate (albeit in groups/cleric duos more than soloing). But it was a common thing right out the gate.

First time I had a Charm DPS in group was lvl 20-ish FP group in Unrest. Less than a month out from Blue Launch. After I saw that I immediately took my Druid to Oasis to experiment w croc charms - I remember this clearly because I was terrible at it and thought to myself "man without heals and SOW this would be a real bitch."

[TripSin]

"Bad early experiences with charm" and "bad word of mouth from early charm experiences" are no different here than on live.

Except that's not true. It was very different back then. It was a different meta. Tecmos is correct.

[derpcake2]

I just find

Please post some kind of proof, and less find and feels.

[loramin]

Please post some kind of proof, and less find and feels.

The proof is the delta. Again, it's like arguing for how classic combat bind wounds was, when no one remembers live being like that. Or like remembering bards doing all of OOT. Bard AoE kiting was 100% a classic mechanic, but Bards doing almost every mob in the zone? Not so much.

P99 is a very, very good emulation. It gets so many mechanics, either perfectly correct, or very close. People who know much more about these mechanics, people like Teppler and all the truly great researchers, have carefully examined the classic research and done their best to make things classic here.

But if something is WILDLY different here, and common sense won't let you explain it away with "people were dumb" ... again, I think the guy from 99 wouldn't say "you're so much smarter than me", he'd say "this isn't the EQ I know."

[derpcake2]

The proof is the delta. Again, it's like arguing for how classic combat bind wounds was, when no one remembers live being like that. Or like remembering bards doing all of OOT. Bard AoE kiting was 100% a classic mechanic, but Bards doing almost every mob in the zone? Not so much.

P99 is a very, very good emulation. It gets so many mechanics, either perfectly correct, or very close. People who know much more about these mechanics, people like Teppler and all the truly great researchers, have carefully examined the classic research and done their best to make things classic here.

But if something is WILDLY different here, and common sense won't let you explain it away with "people were dumb" ... again, I think the guy from 99 wouldn't say "you're so much smarter than me", he'd say "this isn't the EQ I know."

Please post some kind of proof.

You have spent a lot of time formulating your vision in the most humble and eloquent way possible, in every thread you could grasp at the topic.

Without anything to back it up.

A long winded, polite beggar spammer, is still a spammer.

Perhaps you can make another thread to express your finds and feels?

[loramin]

Please post some kind of proof.

You have spent a lot of time formulating your vision in the most humble and eloquent way possible.

Without anything to back it up.

A long winded, polite beggar spammer, is still a spammer.

Perhaps you can make another thread to express your finds and feels?

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

[Man0warr]

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

I remember the best/most feared players on Rallos Zek in 1999 being Enchanters. There was one, Rigamortiz?, who was legendary for soloing Ghoul Lord area at 50.

Not to mention how busted they were in PvP with Charm/Fear/Whirl working on PCs.

[derpcake2]

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

This isn't how it works.

You want staff to change things, you provide the proof in order for them to do so.

[Frostback]

I'm saying our delta is Enchanters going from being ranked one of the worst classes in the game DPS-wise, to the uncontroversial best here. That's a very large delta on the right side of the equation.

On the left you have different variables like say: time/player knowledge (A), internet connection speed (B), and differences between emulated mechanics and live ones (C).

What I keep repeating is very simple: A + B does not add up to that amazingly huge delta vs. live. You can divide A and B into however many subvariables you want, and altogether they might account for a delta of 4, maybe 5 classes, eg. Enchanters formerly being the 6th-best DPS on live, but here they're the 2nd-best.

But from bottom to top, only because of A and B? I just find that a difficult idea to swallow: I think there's got to be a C.


Being ranked best or worst in a class is a popularity vote that averages player ability and knowledge. Enchanters in classic eq were capable of out damaging other classes with the use of charm, and there are many reasons for the current rise in popularity to play the class.

Your A+B are vastly different than classic eq in 1999, which is why you're seeing the variance in class popularity. Keep searching for the differences between emulated mechanics and live ones, it's an interesting subject. I believe those differences are small or insignificant.

In Kael there are a lot of NPCs that can be charmed that are significantly more powerful than any pet. Some folks were using this combination of bug and situation to make encounters much more trivial than they were intended to be.
Kael Charming Bug (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=193) - Aug 7th, 2001

[loramin]

This isn't how it works.

You want staff to change things, you provide the proof in order for them to do so.

Both the staff and I want classic EQ, and whether I'm make a logical or evidence-based argument, either way I'm arguing for "more classicness".

Look, lots of people, much more knowledgeable and harder working than me, have done their best to recreate the classic mechanics. I don't know as much as them, so I can't say what might be off about that recreation.

All I know is that in any video game ... let's say you make an "ice ball throwing" class. People who pick that class are going to want to throw ice balls.

Even if I never played that game, if I read that ten years ago ice-ball-throwers actually threw rocks and not ice because rocks worked better ... but in some recreation of that game everyone actually throws ice ... I don't have to be an expert in that game's mechanics to see the emulation isn't right. The only way it could possibly make sense is if there was a clear and strong factor preventing people from throwing ice balls before which got removed and wasn't part of the games mechanics (eg. bad coloring made it impossible to see where your ice was going, but modern monitors make that no longer an issue).

While factors like less info ("No youtube"), or "no items to make it a little easier" surely contributed, they aren't clear and strong enough factors. They're not "my ice balls used to not work and now they do", so they don't explain why we have all these ice balls.

[Cen]

Would I not be misunderstood to not say I don't want my classic EQ to be more classic then all of your classic EQs, but I don't want it to be as classic as classic was in the classic sense.

It's pretty simple if you try not to not think about it.

You have been mezmerised.

[Erati]

ice balls

OP was ab mage pets...what is happening

[bum3]

The majority of players aren't forum nerds or rule lawyers. Enchanters mezzed because it was important to do so over charm dps. And enchanters don't have the mana pool to charm and mez pre-40ish. And since the majority of the populations weren't over 40 let alone max lvl before kunark, most couldn't charm and mez at the same time. If you had a perfect setup group killing safe stuff, sure. But let's face it.. tanks were rare and are rare and a shammy tanking in 40s isn't that safe. Charming was a lot more common in kunark and very common in Velious. But then content was a easier and gear was fantastic.

[Tecmos Deception]

Being ranked best or worst in a class is a popularity vote that averages player ability and knowledge. Enchanters in classic eq were capable of out damaging other classes with the use of charm, and there are many reasons for the current rise in popularity to play the class.

Your A+B are vastly different than classic eq in 1999, which is why you're seeing the variance in class popularity. Keep searching for the differences between emulated mechanics and live ones, it's an interesting subject. I believe those differences are small or insignificant.


Kael Charming Bug (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=193) - Aug 7th, 2001

Loramin doesn't remember this so it must not have happened.

[loramin]

Loramin doesn't remember this so it must not have happened.

I never said Enchanters didn't charm on live. I never said there weren't advantages to doing so. Quite to the contrary, that's part of my argument.

My point is that they did ... and yet no one remembers them being top DPS there. My hypothesis is that if it worked as well on live as it does here, and if people were doing it, then knowledge so basic would have spread.
Again, the closest parallel I can come up with is Cann-dancing: that too was a "cast a spell plus do one other thing" technique (cast then meditate/break charm), and it was commonly known by Shaman on the Crucible site.

But charming didn't spread: no one remembers Enchanters being DPS at all, let alone top. So either, unlike cann dancing, Enchanters just didn't tell each other how amazing and awesome charm was (so much more awesome than just getting mana back a little faster) ... OR maybe, just maybe, it wasn't quite as awesome on live.

Unless you have something to say to that point, we really should just agree to disagree and stop trying to convince each other.

[Obrae]

While magician had to fight to just get weaker than classic pets, just to get them. Without evidence enchanters on blue and green have always been given god power level.

I find people funny with their old player base was too dumb ideas.

And human couldnt build the pyramids either i bet. It’s a great thing that our generation is here playing EQ, before us, human lived in caves.

[derpcake2]

Unless you have something to say to that point, we really should just agree to disagree and stop trying to convince each other.

We'll agree that you continue to make baseless claims.

[Frostback]

I find people funny with their old player base was too dumb ideas.


I was 12 years old when I started playing everquest. When the game first came out it had a lot of kids and teens playing, which is a rare occasion today.

No one remembers them being top DPS there. My hypothesis is that if it worked as well on live as it does here, and if people were doing it, then knowledge so basic would have spread.

But charming didn't spread: no one remembers Enchanters being DPS at all, let alone top.

"Playing the enchanter is by far no easy task, but reaps the greatest benefits, and definitely earns the title of being the 'best' pure caster."

"The enchanter may be looked upon as weak, as they are in certain areas. Their damage output is very low, and their pets are weak. But proper manipulation of their spells will cause the enchanter to outperform any other class, it's just a matter of using the correct spell"

From EverQuest Stratics (https://web.archive.org/web/20000621221742/http://eq.stratics.com/classes/enchanter/classes_enc_ruri.shtml)


Charming did in fact spread, each expansion provided more tools for an enchanter to use.

I'm not completely against Loramin, I agree there might be some technical differences such as mobs lvl 35+ may have had higher mr which would have made them more resistant to charm. Dolalin has done tons of research on classic eq mechanics and even he has trouble finding the data. While doing my own research I found more websites devoted to roleplaying rather than technical data.

[Tecmos Deception]

Unless you have something to say to that point, we really should just agree to disagree and stop trying to convince each other.

I've said so much to that point. You just write off a dozen cumulative factors that explain why proper charm use never became widespread on live with "well that isn't convincing, let's agree to disagree" without specifically addressing them or elaborating on your reasoning.

My theory is that you just can't/won't assimilate new information. Like, i went into great detail previously with you, including providing analogies and examples, of how charm is a much more complex animal than cannidancing. But here you are still claiming that sitting down between cannis is the same complexity as effectively managing charm.


The difference here is that I AM trying to convince you with thorough explanations and examples and evidence, but you're basically plugging your ears and shouting your one idea at the top of your lungs over and over and then acting like you're taking the high ground by saying "let's agree to disagree."