Enchanter OP impact poll

[Jibartik]

Lots of creepy ppl seem rly pro Enchanter unclassic OPness. Guess they are into nonconcentual charming/domming. Manipulation. Controll. Brainwashing.

Makes a lot of sense they don't want their virtual rohypnol nerfed.

This is like when someone at a party said, "well in 1930's Germany you'd have been a Nazi" when I told him I didn't rescue my dog.

Parties are awesome these days.

[magnetaress]

This is like when someone at a party said, "well in 1930's Germany you'd have been a Nazi" when I told him I didn't rescue my dog.

Parties are awesome these days.

I didn't say that.

People who rescue dogs for social media posts and likes are psychos worse than Nazi. Goebbels disapproves.

Imo. Create humane animal control. Run shelters, cat, dog, abandoned pet colonies, involve voulenteers, community, churches, neuter. Vaccinate strays. Clip ears. Euthanasia if necessary.

Punish people who neglect and abuse their animals. Address the pet trade and outright enslavement and exploitation and genetic corruption of natural species.

Don't get me started.

Apples and oranges. Charm and fear isn't christlike. It's the preview of the wicked and the light elves. And Tunarian superstition.

[Jibartik]

IM saying if you say that me liking enchanter is like me being a gaslighting manipulator its like saying id be a nazi for not resucing a dog today.

The reason I like enchanters is because their class should be called game genie

https://i.imgur.com/CSESPGU.png

[azxten]

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler becomes more likely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[DMN]

Godwin's law is pretty dumb, much like he is. The chance any specific thing comes up in a conversation increases as the time of that conversation increases.

[TripSin]

some dumb garbage not worth perpetuating

Still waiting for you to post the videos you said you would. I hope you're not just going to have absolutely nothing to backup your garbage claims for the umpteenth time. Please prove me wrong for once, I want you to.

[magnetaress]

IM saying if you say that me liking enchanter is like me being a gaslighting manipulator its like saying id be a nazi for not resucing a dog today.

The reason I like enchanters is because their class should be called game genie

https://i.imgur.com/CSESPGU.png

I didn't say that though. Did I?

[magnetaress]

BTW I clarified that down from Enchanter in general to people using charm.

Charm is manipulative but doesn't automatically make you a Nazi or womanizer.

If your thing is charming skeletons or swarthy male orcs. That's creepy, borderline necrophilia err necromancy, or the slippery slope. And masochistic.

Still mayyybe not a Nazi, idk. Rly.

[magnetaress]

Also why would you scare people, animals, or dragons then send a monster, like a snake to kill them?

[Jibartik]

Lots of creepy ppl seem rly pro Enchanter unclassic OPness. Guess they are into nonconcentual charming/domming. Manipulation. Controll. Brainwashing.

naw I just want to control the properties of the universe.

aka have a game genie for irl

aka be an enchanter in eq!

haha but i get your point, actually ssessdidrrixxssss on his necro wiki has a like a lore section on his wiki where he goes on about how necros are about growth and raising immaterial matter back to life, and therefore are not even as close to evil as the mind raping enchanters who drive people to kill their friends.

[magnetaress]

I guess if it's for the greater good and the protection of Tunare...

Jk hope u know I'm just trolling it's just a game. One I obviously take to seriously.

[magnetaress]

Memblur is the best spell.

And atone :)

[azxten]

Still waiting for you to post the videos you said you would. I hope you're not just going to have absolutely nothing to backup your garbage claims for the umpteenth time. Please prove me wrong for once, I want you to.

Don't worry I will. Just busy at the moment.

I was browsing old newsgroups last night and it was really interesting. There are endless mentions that charm breaking was very dangerous even with stuns, etc and fighting outdoors.

All the same old excuses are also debunked there. Pretty much everyone knows CHA is important for Enchanter and what do you see? Not people confirming CHA is great, people complaining they put their starting stats in CHA and now they realize it has almost zero impact on charm even with testing data. It seems to help a lot going from 50 to 75, etc but after about 125ish everyone agrees further increases do nothing noticeable.

People talking about charming green mobs and it still breaks "randomly" often in less than a minute. Lots of Enchanters begging Verant to fix charm duration and confirming that it is mostly useless. The only acknowledged use is to "CC" giants immune to stun/mez and it's only discussed in a complaining way that charm on giants to CC just results in death all the time and lasts 20 seconds on a good cast.

Unlike people trying to claim the discussion of charming giants is cause it's so awesome and OP it's actually because Enchanters are mad nothing else works and that charm just gets them killed. Essentially the Monk/puller becomes the CC agent and that pissed a lot of Enchanters off not made them happy they can easily charm giants for massive DPS. Lots of complaints about DPS in general actually and no mention of pet DPS being good or making up for the lack of damage.

Don't worry it just takes time.

[Jimjam]

Memblur is the best spell.

And atone :)

Atone amazing for 1) name and 2) the name of clicky.

[DMN]

https://i.imgur.com/QASOJat.gif

[cd288]

Don't worry I will. Just busy at the moment.

I was browsing old newsgroups last night and it was really interesting. There are endless mentions that charm breaking was very dangerous even with stuns, etc and fighting outdoors.

All the same old excuses are also debunked there. Pretty much everyone knows CHA is important for Enchanter and what do you see? Not people confirming CHA is great, people complaining they put their starting stats in CHA and now they realize it has almost zero impact on charm even with testing data. It seems to help a lot going from 50 to 75, etc but after about 125ish everyone agrees further increases do nothing noticeable.

People talking about charming green mobs and it still breaks "randomly" often in less than a minute. Lots of Enchanters begging Verant to fix charm duration and confirming that it is mostly useless. The only acknowledged use is to "CC" giants immune to stun/mez and it's only discussed in a complaining way that charm on giants to CC just results in death all the time and lasts 20 seconds on a good cast.

Unlike people trying to claim the discussion of charming giants is cause it's so awesome and OP it's actually because Enchanters are mad nothing else works and that charm just gets them killed. Essentially the Monk/puller becomes the CC agent and that pissed a lot of Enchanters off not made them happy they can easily charm giants for massive DPS. Lots of complaints about DPS in general actually and no mention of pet DPS being good or making up for the lack of damage.

Don't worry it just takes time.

So now people talking about how charm breaks are dangerous is evidence of something? Of course charm breaks are dangerous. That’s not news lol

We have an in era enchanter guide on the wiki talking about how charm is the enchanters most powerful tool lol. Keep crying...but at any rate glad you found yourself a hobby

[G13]

So now people talking about how charm breaks are dangerous is evidence of something? Of course charm breaks are dangerous. That’s not news lol

We have an in era enchanter guide on the wiki talking about how charm is the enchanters most powerful tool lol. Keep crying...but at any rate glad you found yourself a hobby

"Old Newsgroups"

A new level of insanity

[Keebz]

We have an in era enchanter guide on the wiki talking about how charm is the enchanters most powerful tool lol. Keep crying...but at any rate glad you found yourself a hobby

Some observations on that guide.

It seems to be mostly based in the Velious and Luclin era. So mostly in era, but there's a chance some of it is out of scope. The author calls out that small updates and changes were made over the winter 2001-2002 holiday.

The guide also explicitly calls out "[thank you to] Aaldin Dbrain of the Prexus server, who finally was able to get me to dust off the charm spells". So initially the author didn't value charm either, perhaps due to bugs or tuning that were quashed over time.

That being said, I think it's solid evidence, but it actually supports the narrative that formulae on p99 for Enchanter spells/skills may be non-classic.

For example, from the guide:
"* Charm resist rates are minorly impacted by higher Charisma."
"* Charm duration is random, and not visibly affected by Charisma."

Contradicts the common knowledge on p99 that "charm durations are linearly proportional to charisma" https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92423

You may argue that they didn't do thorough research back in the day, but a linear relationship is pretty darn obvious.

Does anyone know if there's counter-evidence provide to justify why Charisma affects charm duration here?

[Baler]

Imagine trying to charm on shitty internet from 1999-2001.
Or random crashes or downtimes.

We need to emulate internet from 1999! It's the only solution.

[qezelia]

Imagine reading that fighting outdoors is dangerous and then continuing further as if there's any credibility left in what is being said.

[DMN]

He mostly played/wrote during the early Classic period. you can see in one of his notes where he mentions that DoTs no longer count as neutral damage sources. Which means he must have been playing pretty early after the game was released as that was changed really early on.

He also goes out of his way to mention velious/luclin "updates" yet never does for kunark, which again makes me think he primarily wrote that from vanilla through kunark, hence never mentions kunark.

The problem with charm and how much cha affects it is, is that the randomness of the spell is so great that whatever cha is possibly doing i's very hard to tell and to properly tested youd need a massive sample size due to that varience. A week or two ago on green at level 60, I was charming a level 36-36 mob with no special reists to magic and it broke 6 times in row within the first 2-3 ticks. other times I get back to back max duration charms. With variance like that it would take thousands upon thousands of hours of charm testing with the same mob to come to any decent conclusion.

[Baler]

Does no one else remember the internet on classic EQ back in the day?
Random D/Cing was common.

On p99 the internet is massively more stable, Charming loses a lot of risk when you are in full control on a stable connection.
------
One more thing no one wants to talk about or doesnt know about. P99 does have random bad RNG to introduce difficulty. Like those times your charm breaks back to back to back compared to other times it just doesn't break.
The devs added this a long, long time ago to counter act the stability of eqemu code and modern internet.

[Jimjam]

Does no one else remember the internet on classic EQ back in the day?
Random D/Cing was common.

On p99 the internet is massively more stable, Charming loses a lot of risk when you are in full control on a stable connection.

My dial up would drop if it was connected for 2 hours.

[Keebz]

With variance like that it would take thousands upon thousands of hours of charm testing with the same mob to come to any decent conclusion.

Loraen demonstrated this relationship with less that 50 iterations in 2012
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92423

So you're off by roughly 2 orders of magnitude.

[Baler]

a lot has changed in p99's spaghetti code since 2012.

[this user was banned]

I’m probably beating a dead horse here, but it needs to be repeated. Many people were on AOL 56k modem dialup back then. Not only that, not everyone had a dedicated phone line for just the modem which means one incoming phone call or a family member picking up the phone not realizing you were online means you get disconnected. Not only that, the connection wasn’t always reliable to begin with.

You’d then notice it about a minute after the fact and then spend a another 2-3 minutes dialing back in and another minute or two logging in and then loading the game. This is all assuming the person calling doesn’t keep calling trying to get through or your family member needed to use the phone. Not everyone had their own personal cell phone back then, most had a single home line and you’d have to fight over it.

With this much risk and how much time it took to regain the lost XP if there wasn’t a high level cleric available, this is going to influence your gameplay decisions. I believe there was an AI back then that took over you character and taught for you when you went LD, and for some classes with pets, going LD isn’t too serious of an issue as your pet can hopefully hold long enough before you leave the game. Otherwise you better damn well have everything rooted and pray it lasts.

This is nothing like a little blip in your connectivity over your fiber optic connection we have today. This literally means you go LD, charm breaks, and you are probably dead.

I grew up with this, I was seriously lucky to get an uninterrupted play session. Maybe other people lived different experiences than myself, but this was what it was like for me playing back then. I played a necro and often soloed, so it wasn’t always big deal, and I even soloed a lot in lower guk. I’d always have gate, FD, and sometimes harmshield ready to cast if I logged back in after a disconnect, and got stomped by respawns.

I never charmed on my necro, I was aware the spells existed, but I never used them; for me it was always pet and dots or undead nukes and taps. None of the guides and forums I read ever suggested trying charming, and I’d wouldn’t for a second dare consider it under the conditions I played in. I usually hunted stuff that was white or yellow, and was tough enough trying to solo a single one of those, I wouldn’t dare consider two at a time. I didn’t have the best gear too, and it was tough trying to figure out what you should get, there was no item linking back then and we didn’t have the robust p99 wiki.

I never tried enchanter back then, but I have played one here and I’d never try what I do now under the conditions I played in back then. When I did group, the few times I remember charm, it was from bards just doing a little temporary CC on big/bad pulls. The enchanters mostly just mezzed and buffed, I didn’t experience any perma-charmed pets with haste and pet toys like we see today. Why weren’t people doing it? I can’t speak for everyone, but from my own experiences, I’d say it wasn’t worth the risk and the stress, grouped or not. Most people back then just wanted to chill, chat, and gain some exp while they do it.

EQ back then was basically an immersive chat room that you happened to gain some exp and loot in. The people I played with back then were mostly laid back, and not the power gaming grinders we often see today (myself included.) Don’t forget, many people built real life friendships, relationships, and even got married in game just like they did in AOL chat rooms. There were actual conversations in groups, and not always about the game. Today, most groups I’ve been in were so intensely focused on maximizing XP, we rarely got to know each other. Back then people would ask where you were from and talk about their lives.

If people back then had the same power gaming mindset and reliable internet connections, I believe they’d have a very similar experience to we have today. If there’s going to be ANY compromise on charm, in my opinion, it’s going to be on empirical grounds with hard evidence, which is sorely lacking; good luck finding posts about people going hardcore testing charm durations with time stamped game logs. We were too enchanted with this new and innovative virtual world to bother.

[Baler]

^this

The Real endgame is socialization.

[Keebz]

a lot has changed in p99's spaghetti code since 2012.

Here's a thread from 2019 on the subject https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339224

[DMN]

Loraen demonstrated this relationship with less that 50 iterations in 2012
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92423

So you're off by roughly 2 orders of magnitude.

He wasn't even using th same mob and the cha was beyond the soft cap. All that data is garbage and shows you nothing useful whatsoever.

[Keebz]

He wasn't even using th same mob and the cha was beyond the soft cap. All that data is garbage and shows you nothing useful whatsoever.

The lack of rigor is further proof that any cursory attempt to measure the effect of CHA on charm duration suggests a linear relationship. Here's another thread from 2012 https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=738889&postcount=52

There's been many people who have individually come to the same conclusion with minimal data sets.

Meanwhile the guide, who's veracity you've otherwise defended, claims no discernible relationship between CHA and charm duration.

[loramin]

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them in the first few pages, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take any attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, which they need to "defend to the death" (forum-style).

[Baler]

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take an attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, regardless of its merits.

What does that make you? :p

edit: the real problem with this thread is OP's attitude. He's pissy that bard AE kiting got nerfed and is on a warpath to ruin other people's enjoyment.

[loramin]

What does that make you? :p

https://i.imgur.com/Qw3tN24.gif?1

[G13]

EQ back then was basically an immersive chat room that you happened to gain some exp and loot in. The people I played with back then were mostly laid back, and not the power gaming grinders we often see today (myself included.) Don’t forget, many people built real life friendships, relationships, and even got married in game just like they did in AOL chat rooms. There were actual conversations in groups, and not always about the game. Today, most groups I’ve been in were so intensely focused on maximizing XP, we rarely got to know each other. Back then people would ask where you were from and talk about their lives.

People forget that EQ was inspired by MUDS (Brad was a hardcore MUD gamer)

All it is really at it's core is a MUD with a 3D graphics engine

[cd288]

The problem with these sorts of threads is that anyone sane bows out of them in the first few pages, and all that's left are the insane people ... the bulk of whom seem to take any attempt to make this place more classic as a personal insult, which they need to "defend to the death" (forum-style).

I’m all for changing things to be classic but beyond channeling neither OP nor anybody else can present any actual evidence.

One person says oh I remember classic being this way. And someone else says the opposite. One person finds a forum post that they believe lends credence to their argument. Another person finds a post that directly contradicts the other post. None of these things are evidence.

Present actual evidence and put it in the bugs forum. There’s no point to these types of threads in this section of the forum and it’s doubly annoying that OP makes the same thread every few months.

[bubur]

the real real problem w these threads is no solution proposed

we have arguing over whether the coders should "fix" this for actual years now. maybe we should ask could they?

[Baler]

the real real problem w these threads is no solution proposed

we have arguing over whether the coders should "fix" this for actual years now. maybe we should ask could they?

I'm telling you all, Let's emulate internet from 1999 and it will solve so many problems!

[loramin]

I’m all for changing things to be classic but beyond channeling neither OP nor anybody else can present any actual evidence.

One person says oh I remember classic being this way. And someone else says the opposite. One person finds a forum post that they believe lends credence to their argument. Another person finds a post that directly contradicts the other post. None of these things are evidence.

Present actual evidence and put it in the bugs forum. There’s no point to these types of threads in this section of the forum and it’s doubly annoying that OP makes the same thread every few months.

I didn't see that; to the contrary, I saw several people, including master researcher Dolalin, saying there were likely multiple issues ... just not big ones.

But look, I'm curious ... did you play in classic? If so, you almost certainly read sites which explained which classes could solo and which couldn't. There were lots of such sites, but they all said the same basic thing, so I'll use Caster's Realm (as it seems to be the basis for our wiki):

"Despite the fact that Clerics are one of only two pure caster classes which can wear plate, they are not suited to prolonged tanking which makes soloing difficult. " (https://web.archive.org/web/20001109133900/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/Cleric.asp)

"Druids are perhaps the best soloing class in the game." (https://web.archive.org/web/20001109135600/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/Druid.asp)

"Because of this [Rogues] are generally poor soloers, and forced to group. " (https://web.archive.org/web/20010207201120/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/rogue.asp)

"Magicians can solo quite effectively" (https://web.archive.org/web/20010331060043/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/magician.asp)

... you get the idea.

Now of course, those sites did make mistakes sometimes, but not about basics like which classes can solo. In fact, you can pick any class, compare what sites said about them back in '99-'01 vs. what people say on the forum today, and they will be roughly the same ....

... except for Enchanters, the only class that changed! If we did a poll and asked "Are Enchanters good soloers?" 90+% would respond yes ... but back then ...

"Soloing, whilst possible, is generally quite slow and as such they do not raise levels as quickly as some other classes as their experience is almost always through that of a group."
(https://web.archive.org/web/20001109142700/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/enchanter.asp)

My argument is very, very simple: until our game matches the game described on countless Wayback machine sites, it's not classic. Maybe that means we need to start randomly disconnecting people ;) But again, I think it would make more sense to fix small bugs, and tweak numbers/equations/formulas that we never had exact evidence of in the first place.

[cd288]

I didn't see that; to the contrary, I saw several people, including master researcher Dolalin, saying there were likely multiple issues ... just not big ones.

But look, I'm curious ... did you play in classic? If so, you almost certainly read sites which explained which classes could solo and which couldn't. There were lots of such sites, but they all said the same basic thing, so I'll use Caster's Realm (as it seems to be the basis for our wiki):

"Despite the fact that Clerics are one of only two pure caster classes which can wear plate, they are not suited to prolonged tanking which makes soloing difficult. " (https://web.archive.org/web/20001109133900/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/Cleric.asp)

"Druids are perhaps the best soloing class in the game." (https://web.archive.org/web/20001109135600/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/Druid.asp)

"Because of this [Rogues] are generally poor soloers, and forced to group. " (https://web.archive.org/web/20010207201120/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/rogue.asp)

"Magicians can solo quite effectively" (https://web.archive.org/web/20010331060043/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/magician.asp)

... you get the idea.

Now of course, those sites did make mistakes sometimes, but not about basics like which classes can solo. In fact, you can pick any class, compare what sites said about them back in '99-'01 vs. what people say on the forum today, and they will be roughly the same ....

... except for Enchanters, the only class that changed! If we did a poll and asked "Are Enchanters good soloers?" 90+% would respond yes ... but back then ...

"Soloing, whilst possible, is generally quite slow and as such they do not raise levels as quickly as some other classes as their experience is almost always through that of a group."
(https://web.archive.org/web/20001109142700/http://eq.castersrealm.com/creationguides/enchanter.asp)

My argument is very, very simple: until our game matches the game described on countless Wayback machine sites, it's not classic. Maybe that means we need to start randomly disconnecting people ;) But again, I think it would make more sense to fix small bugs, and tweak numbers/equations/formulas that we never had exact evidence of in the first place.

Again, hearsay posts are meaningless. You have an in era guide on enchanters on the wiki for example that says charm is the enchanters most powerful tool. Posts and guides are all just contradictory hearsay. Find patch notes, dev comments, or data mining as evidence and post it in the bug forum.

Posts in this section of the forums are pointless. If you have legit evidence go post in the bug forum.

[loramin]

Again, hearsay posts are meaningless. You have an in era guide on enchanters on the wiki for example that says charm is the enchanters most powerful tool. Posts and guides are all just contradictory hearsay. Find patch notes, dev comments, or data mining as evidence and post it in the bug forum.

Posts in this section of the forums are pointless. If you have legit evidence go post in the bug forum.

I'm talking about two distinct things, but you're conflating them.

Thing #1: how one can tell that things aren't classic here (the fact that our game matches what all of the sites in '99-'01 describe, for every class ... except Enchanters).

Thing #2: why we aren't classic (as I mentioned, there are multiple issues, at least some of which have already been documented with evidence by people who know far more than I, eg. Dolalain).

[ClephNote]

You gotta remember that these random internet posters weren’t prophets that spoke with Brad via a burning bush. It was basically in era Loramin. We got Loramin quoting Loramin.

Don’t forget to update the wiki!

[DMN]

The lack of rigor is further proof that any cursory attempt to measure the effect of CHA on charm duration suggests a linear relationship. Here's another thread from 2012 https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=738889&postcount=52

There's been many people who have individually come to the same conclusion with minimal data sets.

Meanwhile the guide, who's veracity you've otherwise defended, claims no discernible relationship between CHA and charm duration.

Coming to a conclusion with "minimal data sets" is exactly the god damn problem. This other bit of data you linked here clearly spells out the issue I informed you of: the randomness inherent in charming requires a very large sample size to determine the exact effects of cha. This data showed that the average was TWICE as high as the median, which means HIGHLY RANDOM and/or TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE.

But if you wanna use that data it turns out that the average on the low cha test was actually in close agreement with the charm durations that the guy who wrote that guide was lso seeing himself at the low cha levels he was geared.. Ge was saying average charm rates i n the 2.5 mins range. If you put any stock in that data it confirms what he was saying.

And, if you'd actually sit down and think a bit about it inseatd of jumping to half ass conclusions, you'd then understand why he doesn't think cha is the greatest stat in the world : he is happy with the amount of time he gets on his charms because he's immediately killing his own charm after a fight or 2. He DOESN'T CARE if it lasts more than 3 mins or so because his pet wil be dead by then.

Additionally. don't be a lying piece of trash like Asston. He never said cha was not important for charming or had no discernable effects, he just said he no longer considered it godly and as I informed you above as to his reasons why.

[cd288]

I'm talking about two distinct things, but you're conflating them.

Thing #1: how one can tell that things aren't classic here (the fact that our game matches what all of the sites in '99-'01 describe, for every class ... except Enchanters).

Thing #2: why we aren't classic (as I mentioned, there are multiple issues, at least some of which have already been documented with evidence by people who know far more than I, eg. Dolalain).

There’s many reasons why things are different here, including knowledge of classes and what class is needed to farm the most valuable camps, and tech specs.

Again, if you have actual real evidence then go post it in the bug forums and stop arguing about it here. The reason you’re still here on this thread is all you have is speculation and your own opinions and experiences (which are contradicted by other players) and old player posts which are contradicted by other old player posts.

Show data mining (as we did with channeling), patch notes, or dev statements. Otherwise anything you have to offer beyond that is pointless hearsay. /thread

[bubur]

fine I'll make my own solution

charm should only work on members of the opposing gender, which you will be able to now choose independently of your outward appearance on a scale from 1-100

to keep it classic we won't tell anyone what the numbers mean so we can make threads debating which is the most effective, and even the player themself will not be totally sure what they picked and is therefore in a constant state of questioning

feedback?

[this user was banned]

fine I'll make my own solution

charm should only work on members of the opposing gender, which you will be able to now choose independently of your outward appearance on a scale from 1-100

to keep it classic we won't tell anyone what the numbers mean so we can make threads debating which is the most effective, and even the player themself will not be totally sure what they picked and is therefore in a constant state of questioning

feedback?

That's homophobic...

[Keebz]

Coming to a conclusion with "minimal data sets" is exactly the god damn problem. This other bit of data you linked here clearly spells out the issue I informed you of: the randomness inherent in charming requires a very large sample size to determine the exact effects of cha. This data showed that the average was TWICE as high as the median, which means HIGHLY RANDOM and/or TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE.

Are you trying to make the claim that multiple lines of independent research done on p99 on the effect of CHA on charm duration on p99 are incorrect? Or that it is unfeasible to do so?

Because it is well documented how effective CHA is at increasing charm duration here--it is very effective. The evidence is all over the forums. I've linked 3 examples already.


He never said cha was not important for charming or had no discernable effects, he just said he no longer considered it godly and as I informed you above as to his reasons why.

https://xornn.tripod.com/Tactics/charm.htm

"Charm duration is random, and not visibly affected by Charisma."

Excuse my paraphrasing.

[bubur]

That's homophobic...

I see where you're coming from but not necessarily. this assumes charm, an alteration spell, is inherently sexual in nature, but I don't think there's any evidence of that. what I'm saying is that it's based on brain function and manipulation of motor neurons but they must be diametrically opposed for the spell to spellinate

That said I'm willing to accept randomly assigned mutations in the system such that you also have to find out through experimentation if you have a straight charm or some other variation

Another feature we could add is that the whole system might just actually not work at all, so then we would truly be wondering

[DMN]

keebz = azxten

[azxten]

keebz = azxten

Not everyone who proves you wrong is one entity. We are many.

[Jimjam]

Not everyone who proves you wrong is one entity. We are many.

I meant to switch accounts to post that, but the point stands. Where is the delete button?

[TripSin]

Not everyone who proves you wrong is one entity. We are many.

I mean it's easy to make that inference when you both have no idea what actual strong evidence is and asserting one person's anecdote that "charm has no visible affect on charm duration" is proof of anything. I still have charms that break seconds after sticking on p99 even at near maxed cha. That guy may have just said that because even at high cha charms still randomly break. He, like you, could've had a very limited perspective, and so ended up thinking "hey, my charm still breaks sometime right after it lands even though I have high charisma so I guess it doesn't help" not considering that charisma could affect the average of charm durations, not the absolute duration.

Also, still waiting on the videos, which I highly doubt you will ever produce because you can never actually come up with real evidence, all you seem to be good for is crying about garbage and nonsense. Again though, would LOVE for you to prove me wrong.

[Toxigen]

31 pages

yikes

[bubur]

I'm thinkin we could do 90

who's in

[azxten]

31 pages

yikes

So far 99 voting "needs nerf" and 89 voting "does not need nerf."

These threads always go long because a lot of Enchanters are scared their OP class will be adjusted like Nec/Bard/Etc regardless of classic evidence they know exists and a lot of P99 players are sick of the Enchanter focused meta especially as it relates to the future servers of P99.

As stated earlier my messaging is lacking and I hope to bring these two groups together with a larger analysis. In essence I still feel Enchanter is mostly fine at level 50+ so Enchanters should relax and realize they'll still be OP in the end same as today. It's just the power curve to get 50+ requires a lot more effort and is much harder in classic era. That means pre-Kunark.

From one perspective I'm actually arguing for an increase in Enchanter power for those who play it to 50+. There should be less Enchanters willing or capable to level to 50+ given the difficulty but for those who do they will be a more rare and in demand class with the same level of power they have today.

That is outside of the channeling nerf which will hurt almost everyone but is necessary to restore classic difficulty and game design. The game is more fun when the difficulty follows the intended game design. People hate nerfs but it's for their own good. Same as Verant nerfing all kinds of shit and people crying non-stop in classic. If people find ways to escape the intended design curves in terms of leveling, DPS, etc it's harmful to the entire server.

Finding these ways to escape is what made classic EQ fun for a lot of people so of course they're pissed that some of these methods might get nerfed. The trick was to find ways to escape the curve and not have it become wide spread and get nerfed. P99 needs to stop letting wide spread abusive mechanics escape nerfs because "it's classic." Allowing these things is also not classic. Item recharges, pet tracking, channeling, charm, and so on would all be nerfed on a real live classic server if it was as wide spread as it is here. It's all about level of impact on subscriber revenue and speed of progress through content.

Green launch, in my opinion, demonstrates a real lack of understanding or agreement from the devs with this concept. My reasoning was the instanced Teal server because of "overcrowding" on green. Green had like 1/5th a real live server population. The difficult leveling due to "overcrowding" was a design feature and is a big part of why ZEMs weren't so impactful on live.

Did HHK on live have a high ZEM? Probably. You know what else it had? 5x as many players and the goblin area was split into 3-4 camps of full groups waiting on spawns. That is probably why the ZEM was higher, due to limited spawns, and lots of players. You mostly sat around talking to your group members, socializing, getting bored and coming up with stupid ideas like leaving HHK to try Runnyeye and then getting your corpses lost deep in the zone. You know, having fun, doing stuff with other players, not just lining up for the high ZEM zone which is intentionally kept low population. Was the Hole selected for high ZEM because the devs thought it would support enough players? That is a BAD idea not a good one. High ZEM should mean overcrowding and a difficult/boring experience not tons of mobs and a free for all for your group.

[G13]

So far 99 voting "needs nerf" and 89 voting "does not need nerf."

These threads always go long because a lot of Enchanters are scared their OP class will be adjusted like Nec/Bard/Etc regardless of classic evidence they know exists and a lot of P99 players are sick of the Enchanter focused meta especially as it relates to the future servers of P99.

As stated earlier my messaging is lacking and I hope to bring these two groups together with a larger analysis. In essence I still feel Enchanter is mostly fine at level 50+ so Enchanters should relax and realize they'll still be OP in the end same as today. It's just the power curve to get 50+ requires a lot more effort and is much harder in classic era. That means pre-Kunark.

From one perspective I'm actually arguing for an increase in Enchanter power for those who play it to 50+. There should be less Enchanters willing or capable to level to 50+ given the difficulty but for those who do they will be a more rare and in demand class with the same level of power they have today.

That is outside of the channeling nerf which will hurt almost everyone but is necessary to restore classic difficulty and game design. The game is more fun when the difficulty follows the intended game design. People hate nerfs but it's for their own good. Same as Verant nerfing all kinds of shit and people crying non-stop in classic. If people find ways to escape the intended design curves in terms of leveling, DPS, etc it's harmful to the entire server.

Finding these ways to escape is what made classic EQ fun for a lot of people so of course they're pissed that some of these methods might get nerfed. The trick was to find ways to escape the curve and not have it become wide spread and get nerfed. P99 needs to stop letting wide spread abusive mechanics escape nerfs because "it's classic." Allowing these things is also not classic. Item recharges, pet tracking, channeling, charm, and so on would all be nerfed on a real live classic server if it was as wide spread as it is here. It's all about level of impact on subscriber revenue and speed of progress through content.

Green launch, in my opinion, demonstrates a real lack of understanding or agreement from the devs with this concept. My reasoning was the instanced Teal server because of "overcrowding" on green. Green had like 1/5th a real live server population. The difficult leveling due to "overcrowding" was a design feature and is a big part of why ZEMs weren't so impactful on live.

Did HHK on live have a high ZEM? Probably. You know what else it had? 5x as many players and the goblin area was split into 3-4 camps of full groups waiting on spawns. That is probably why the ZEM was higher, due to limited spawns, and lots of players.

TLDR

I thought changes like these should be because "Classic" and not because of a poll where you could have logged in multiple accounts to pad the numbers

Proving my point you're trying to create a narrative so you can pretend you are important

Also I find it hilarious that as soon as DMN calls you out for posting on multiple accounts suddenly you start posting as Azxten again and Keebs is nowhere to be found

[magnetaress]

fine I'll make my own solution

charm should only work on members of the opposing gender, which you will be able to now choose independently of your outward appearance on a scale from 1-100

to keep it classic we won't tell anyone what the numbers mean so we can make threads debating which is the most effective, and even the player themself will not be totally sure what they picked and is therefore in a constant state of questioning

feedback?

That's homophobic...

I'm thinkin we could do 90

who's in

Lol'd

[magnetaress]

Charm should be way more random every tick after 1 minute.

[azxten]

TLDR

I thought changes like these should be because "Classic" and not because of a poll where you could have logged in multiple accounts to pad the numbers

Proving my point you're trying to create a narrative so you can pretend you are important

Also I find it hilarious that as soon as DMN calls you out for posting on multiple accounts suddenly you start posting as Azxten again and Keebs is nowhere to be found

lol... paranoia strikes deep

[Raclen]

I didn't read 31 pages but did the OP say his opinion is nonbiased because he is an enchanter and he thinks enchanters are overpowered? Did he then go on to say he is now high level and thinks high level enchanters should stay just as powerful but nerf how powerful enchanters are when leveling up to make his class more rare?

[G13]

lol... paranoia strikes deep

Says fraudster digging into old news groups from 20+ years ago and claiming it's "evidence"

Keebs where are you Keebs?

[Jimjam]

Says fraudster digging into old news groups from 20+ years ago and claiming it's "evidence"

Keebs where are you Keebs? Hi, Kerbs here. You might better know me as Azxten.

Setting the bar as thousands of lines of parses is unreasonable. The current implementation of channeling, charm, etc wasn’t implemented under such a high level of scrutiny.

If you want enchanter implementation to meet such scrutiny the only logical course of action would be to remove the class until the data could be found. Well done on getting enchanter deleted. I suppose it would be a largely classic implementation as no one played one before POP. Imperfect implementation is better than nothing. And imperfect changes that move p1999 closer to classic are better than non at all.

[G13]

Hi, Kerbs here. You might better know me as Azxten.

Setting the bar as thousands of lines of parses is unreasonable. The current implementation of channeling, charm, etc wasn’t implemented under such a high level of scrutiny.

If you want enchanter implementation to meet such scrutiny the only logical course of action would be to remove the class until the data could be found. Well done on getting enchanter deleted. I suppose it would be a largely classic implementation as no one played one before POP. Imperfect implementation is better than nothing. And imperfect changes that move p1999 closer to classic are better than non at all.

I was skimming through this thread

It's totally him

Keebz even edited one of his posts for "grammar" lol who does that

They both post in the same phony intellectual way pulling the same types of links from obscure sources

HOW EMBARRASSING

[loramin]

I was skimming through this thread

It's totally him

Keebz even edited one of his posts for "grammar" lol who does that

They both post in the same phony intellectual way pulling the same types of links from obscure sources

HOW EMBARRASSING

https://i.imgur.com/LTV8Ry0.gif

[magnetaress]

StRkinD is eVrYWHeRe

[Keebz]

We Are the Storm. We Are Legion.

[Snortles Chortles]

https://i.imgur.com/TSWN1Hj.jpg

[Crawdad]

I can't believe I go away for ~year and a half and this guy's still going on about enchanters. I need to know your tragic backstory, did enchanters burn down your village?

[G13]

We Are the Storm. We Are Legion.

/wave OP

[DoodyLich666]

His old man was a enchanter. Went to go pick up some tiny daggers one day, and never came back.

[CancerMage]

His old man was a enchanter. Went to go pick up some tiny daggers one day, and never came back.

best post in this thread so far.

[surron]

from Torven a TAKP dev (this is data gathered from eqmac a 2002 locked server)... probably the best you'll ever get for p99 era mechanics.


I didn't implement the charm resist logic, I merely un-broke it. The resist check on ticks just wasn't working at all. The only reason some charms even broke early was because the resist check (for all spells) was set to > instead of >=, so it was possible for any target to resist anything at any resist level if it rolled 0.

The current charm resist logic was implemented by Kayen, an eqemu dev. He did many parses on Live some time ago. What I did was replicate his C++ code in lua so I could unit test it and compare it against my own parses. They matched close enough that I accepted it and moved on to the next problem.

Charm is supposed to have a chance to break at any time, on anything, even with 0 resist, even with enchanter AA TD3. If you cast 3 charms, get a bad streak of breaks, and give up, then that's the RNG and not the algorithm.

Also the algorithm currently makes charm much, much less effective on yellows and reds by giving them a substantial resist bonus. I didn't add that, but I left it in. Charm on a white con however will hold as well as charm on a green con so long as tash or malo remains on it. (yellows may hold if you have tash+malo) Charm will not currently hold very well if the target has any significant MR. If you charm a caster and it casts a shielding buff, then it's not gonna hold well unless you debuff it a lot.

Here's some of my parse analyses. Note that average charm durations will not be directly comparable on spells with different maximum durations.

Druid Charm - Al'Kabor

Wooly Rhino (level 38-39), Eastern Wastes - Level 44 Caster
Charms: 37
durations: 32, 104, 3, 18, 39, 56, 71, 142, 45, 7, 83, 12, 110, 49, 146, 55, 67, 18, 0, 1, 74, 40, 14, 21, 41, 46, 13, 146, 28, 30, 89, 100, 24, 51, 83, 10, 5,
min duration: 0 ticks; max duration: 146 ticks; avg duration: 51 ticks


A Rockhopper (level 37-45), Dawnshroud Peaks - Level 46-51 Caster
Charms: 99
durations: 4, 23, 19, 12, 74, 63, 61, 2, 11, 10, 61, 148, 65, 103, 49, 51, 152, 15, 87, 6, 43, 35, 45, 28, 50, 13, 6, 152, 68, 8, 20, 55, 155, 8, 155, 78, 155, 19, 10, 155, 44, 73, 25, 124, 31, 10, 17, 20, 158, 93, 158, 23, 71, 33, 40, 23, 29, 23, 28, 83, 106, 97, 25, 153, 2, 5, 63, 54, 161, 105, 161, 50, 42, 107, 15, 34, 33, 0, 116, 85, 25, 1, 38, 45, 93, 76, 18, 125, 23, 27, 15, 53, 77, 82, 24, 44, 78, 30, 86,
min duration: 0 ticks; max duration: 161 ticks; avg duration: 58.5 ticks


A Raptor (level 40-43), Timorous Deep - Level 51-53 Caster
Charms: 58
durations: 7, 22, 5, 65, 14, 24, 128, 10, 20, 88, 22, 114, 95, 1, 34, 38, 142, 10, 124, 34, 59, 57, 6, 74, 77, 16, 16, 121, 13, 43, 89, 45, 170, 2, 54, 50, 48, 12, 170, 0, 25, 32, 12, 34, 3, 46, 11, 71, 9, 15, 85, 64, 79, 12, 22, 0, 22, 170,
min duration: 0 ticks; max duration: 170 ticks; avg duration: 49.2 ticks


A Vicious Raptor (level 43-45), Timorous Deep - Level 54 Caster; use of Glamour of Tunare
Charms: 40
durations: 4, 47, 18, 98, 83, 149, 112, 69, 7, 8, 57, 35, 81, 3, 32, 33, 7, 34, 66, 66, 47, 92, 61, 70, 84, 89, 67, 173, 62, 41, 2, 30, 4, 59, 28, 18, 165, 34, 1, 24,
min duration: 1 ticks; max duration: 173 ticks; avg duration: 54.4 ticks


A sabertooth grimalkin (level 22-24), Lake of Ill Omen - Level 55 Caster; use of Glamour of Tunare
Charms: 32
durations: 72, 42, 27, 30, 25, 52, 4, 58, 38, 87, 21, 3, 98, 3, 35, 69, 11, 3, 81, 12, 33, 6, 37, 90, 40, 11, 14, 10, 57, 123, 149, 177,
min duration: 3 ticks; max duration: 177 ticks; avg duration: 47.8 ticks


A Raptor (level 40-43), Timorous Deep - Level 55 Caster; use of Glamour of Tunare
Charms: 9
durations: 1, 3, 127, 80, 51, 9, 58, 90, 70,
min duration: 1 ticks; max duration: 127 ticks; avg duration: 54.8 ticks


A Raptor (level 40-43), Timorous Deep - Level 55 Caster; use of Glamour of Tunare
Charms: 52
durations: 92, 62, 54, 48, 32, 175, 156, 94, 93, 163, 8, 10, 69, 73, 55, 17, 51, 31, 32, 13, 14, 176, 128, 100, 14, 73, 89, 175, 22, 15, 37, 19, 121, 31, 11, 3, 55, 95, 53, 121, 28, 42, 65, 71, 46, 53, 22, 14, 125, 29, 10, 62,
min duration: 3 ticks; max duration: 176 ticks; avg duration: 62.8 ticks


A sabertooth grimalkin (level 22-24), Lake of Ill Omen - Level 56 Caster; use of Glamour of Tunare
Charms: 145
durations: 21, 19, 33, 117, 51, 56, 0, 31, 79, 15, 2, 77, 125, 131, 69, 30, 100, 180, 71, 24, 3, 178, 1, 0, 20, 86, 9, 5, 78, 128, 139, 17, 57, 179, 82, 60, 175, 13, 20, 20, 23, 1, 34, 10, 10, 83, 71, 5, 57, 42, 5, 73, 62, 37, 144, 5, 15, 27, 142, 55, 75, 65, 29, 39, 62, 115, 75, 179, 45, 8, 160, 57, 28, 88, 61, 66, 88, 176, 25, 3, 75, 179, 62, 180, 31, 92, 90, 56, 128, 6, 27, 39, 112, 0, 93, 73, 7, 66, 180, 176, 85, 10, 15, 89, 2, 90, 32, 6, 17, 67, 84, 179, 30, 7, 59, 24, 65, 8, 139, 90, 15, 76, 37, 64, 19, 21, 162, 21, 2, 24, 27, 54, 6, 53, 4, 95, 37, 19, 156, 48, 83, 147, 76, 53, 6,
min duration: 0 ticks; max duration: 180 ticks; avg duration: 61.9 ticks


Enchanter Charm - Al'Kabor

Diaku Sentry (level 60) with tash and malo on 100% of the time
Enchanter: Level 65 with TD3; Charisma value uncertain but relatively high if not capped at 305
Full Charm Resists: 0
Maximum Charm Duration: ~07:45 (~77 ticks)
Average Charm Duration: 05:39 (56.5 ticks, 73.3%)
Number of Max Charms: 16 of 36 (44.4%)


The main factor of charm duration is the mobs MR, and there's no way to know those original values and most likely p99 does not have them right.

[Disease]

from Torven a TAKP dev (this is data gathered from eqmac a 2002 locked server)... probably the best you'll ever get for p99 era mechanics.




The main factor of charm duration is the mobs MR, and there's no way to know those original values and most likely p99 does not have them right.

Charm lasts as long on a white con as a green... Damn that doesnt sound right.

[surron]

he saying thats how it is in eqemu code, which is what p99 is forked from - unknown if that is the same in p99

[Baler]

from Torven a TAKP dev (this is data gathered from eqmac a 2002 locked server)... probably the best you'll ever get for p99 era mechanics.

eqmac was a very different server, They didn't even have doors in kedge keep! :eek:
shout out to TAKP, great server.

[surron]

I agree, but dont think there would be any reason for eqmac devs to touch charm logic in the few years it was in true development.

In any case, his parses from Al'Kabor match pretty high charm rates - but not really much data in terms of mob diversity.

who knows what p99 has done to the eqemu charm logic. I do know it's different than eqemu because apparently on p99 cha effects charm duration - which isn't a true mechanic (it should only affect initial cast.) Can't find the evidence Torven has from eqmac. who knows if that makes charm shorter/longer on p99 though.

I think the only true changes you'll see get implemented that effect charm duration on p99 are evidence of higher MR on certain mobs but that's hard to come by.

[DMN]

I agree, but dont think there would be any reason for eqmac devs to touch charm logic in the few years it was in true development.

In any case, his parses from Al'Kabor match pretty high charm rates - but not really much data in terms of mob diversity.

who knows what p99 has done to the eqemu charm logic. I do know it's different than eqemu because apparently on p99 cha effects charm duration - which isn't a true mechanic (it should only affect initial cast.) Can't find the evidence Torven has from eqmac. who knows if that makes charm shorter/longer on p99 though.

I think the only true changes you'll see get implemented that effect charm duration on p99 are evidence of higher MR on certain mobs but that's hard to come by.

Eh, I certainly haven't seen any solid evidence cha has a statistically significant effect on charm duration yet so /shrug. Maybe they do have it implemented as such. Hour or two of charming with 30 some charm breaks is nothing when testing something that can break in 1 second or last 15 mins.

[magnetaress]

Prove it.

[azxten]

I agree, but dont think there would be any reason for eqmac devs to touch charm logic in the few years it was in true development.

In any case, his parses from Al'Kabor match pretty high charm rates - but not really much data in terms of mob diversity.

who knows what p99 has done to the eqemu charm logic. I do know it's different than eqemu because apparently on p99 cha effects charm duration - which isn't a true mechanic (it should only affect initial cast.) Can't find the evidence Torven has from eqmac. who knows if that makes charm shorter/longer on p99 though.

I think the only true changes you'll see get implemented that effect charm duration on p99 are evidence of higher MR on certain mobs but that's hard to come by.

Unfortunate, most of what you're saying fits with what I was reading though.

Enchanters complaining about charm breaking fast on green mobs back in 1999. Fits with the same thing being said.

Also specific mentions about mob MR and that Enchanters believed mob MR scaled with their level so that Enchanters were slowly less able to control mobs as they got higher level.

I do think mob MR and it's impact on charm may be a major thing that is missing. On my Enchanter I only bothered to tash yellow+ mobs but reading classic era posts everyone talks about tash being a requirement even on blues.

Any P99 devs have anything to add to this conversation?

[soxetaqo]

Non-classically overpowered and needs nerf ;)

[soxetaqo]

oops, I mean
Non-classically overpowered and does not need nerf :D (https://salegabriel.com/fr/)

[cd288]

It’s funny how statements from 30 years ago are taken as fact when they support what the whiney OP wants done.

Know what else you can find from 20 years ago? People saying that pets steal exp from groups. People saying that the lowest level in the group gets the most exp. If you’re a Druid killing animals could decrease your chance to charm animals of the same type. There were incorrect statements about AGI and Dex. Looting corpses fully sped up a mob’s spawn timer. All kinds of incorrect statements on placeholders, spawn times, pathing, etc. And again, all kinds of contradictory statements about CHA and charming.

Old posts are worthless as evidence

[bwe]

Ah yes, "nothing" is definitely worth more as evidence than uh, evidence

[bubur]

how many votes are required to forcibly class change every enchanter into rangers

i know some ppl who may cast some mail-in ballots if you give me a target

[Vizax_Xaziv]

bombaroast - Dev's just need facts and no one had provided detailed facts to back it up.
snortles - yep

Wait a sec can't we play one of the modern everquest TLP servers and see how these spells operate? Wouldn't it give us some base line?
No the TLPs run a much more modern code base than classic.

[Vizax_Xaziv]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=343453&page=3&highlight=channeling

While we're at it let me add this as well..



At level 1 on P99 you have the channeling success rate of level ~30. This ridiculously successful channeling rate on P99 greatly benefits Enchanter especially at lower levels. Really though this is a whole other can of worms about why P99 is so easy and everyone just stacks up at max level easily zerging raid mobs.

Yea my lvl 24! Enchanter can channel repeated mezzes through 4+ mobs beating on him. It definitely seems a bit overtuned.

[Seducio]

Why does the poll add up to 128.92% upon 'view results'?

Sounds like a bug in calculation algorithm for poll total

[HalflingSpergand]

U can vote multiples nub.
For instance i voted 1 and 5

[cd288]

Yea my lvl 24! Enchanter can channel repeated mezzes through 4+ mobs beating on him. It definitely seems a bit overtuned.

We know channeling is broken but it’s not fixable. Nothing else has any actual evidence. Honestly channeling is probably the main reason people can charm kill way better on P99, charm breaks are much more survivable because of it

[formallydickman]

We know channeling is broken but it’s not fixable. Nothing else has any actual evidence. Honestly channeling is probably the main reason people can charm kill way better on P99, charm breaks are much more survivable because of it

So I’m sure you voted unclassically OP then right? Lmao

[cd288]

So I’m sure you voted unclassically OP then right? Lmao

I mean what’s the point in crying about an in classic aspect of the class that the P99 devs don’t have the ability to fix?

[magnetaress]

Poll should be:

How do you remember charm?

Unreliable and rarely used.
Used regularly and Enchanters always soloed.
Bush played an Enchanter in 1999-2001

[Jibartik]

How do you remember charm?


people werelike

https://i.imgur.com/t2KUhrD.png
https://i.imgur.com/hMjQKnf.png

[DMN]

I mean what’s the point in crying about an in classic aspect of the class that the P99 devs don’t have the ability to fix?

More to the point, enchanters aren't the only class with channeling, nor the only ones who rely on it.

I don't recall having interrupt issues on my enchanter in classic, but I do recall being married to color flux. Flux and mesmerize never left my spell bar on any condition. if channeling checks become worse, enchanters will jut all run with 2 stuns, one always being flux. Everyone else with channeling gets fucked, though, enchanters will be just fine.

[cd288]

More to the point, enchanters aren't the only class with channeling, nor the only ones who rely on it.

I don't recall having interrupt issues on my enchanter in classic, but I do recall being married to color flux. Flux and mesmerize never left my spell bar on any condition. if channeling checks become worse, enchanters will jut all run with 2 stuns, one always being flux. Everyone else with channeling gets fucked, though, enchanters will be just fine.

Yeah that’s a fair point. I do think it’s been confirmed channeling is different on P99 and when I first joined I do remember being surprised that I could cast so well through hits. However you’re right that Ench is the only caster who really has an efficient tool kit to save itself at higher levels of mobs are beating on it and channeling is harder.

[Izmael]

I think the channeling, and generally, the combat / magic mechanics on P99 are very well balanced, considering this is 2021.

All kinds of gameplay are possible on P99 - grouping, soloing, duoing, raiding, half-afk killing a mob every 30 minutes while working, etc.

This way, everyone can find a way that suits their RL needs. Given how small the classic EQ community is, restricting some of these gameplays would inevitably lead to shrinking population of the servers. R&N are well aware of it, and this is probably the #1 reason for the non-classic adjustments they implemented.

The last thing everyone would want here is a dying population like on Red (other reasons, citing for the sake of outcome analogy). Dying population is also a vicious circle - newcomers are turned off by the fact they zone into an empty Crushbone or something. They log off and forget about P99 until further notice. Not cool.

At this point R&N have something that works and if I were them I wouldn't implement anything drastic that would potentially hurt the pop. Something like nerfing casters is incredibly drastic and is unlikely to happen IMO.

[Jimjam]

Rolled an sk on green recently, mobs can push you further than the All Blacks scrum at level 11 and your character just laughs it off and resumes concentration.

Huge nerf required.

[cd288]

Rolled an sk on green recently, mobs can push you further than the All Blacks scrum at level 11 and your character just laughs it off and resumes concentration.

Huge nerf required.

It’s 2021, I think you mean RSA’s scrum

[TripSin]

More to the point, enchanters aren't the only class with channeling, nor the only ones who rely on it.

I don't recall having interrupt issues on my enchanter in classic, but I do recall being married to color flux. Flux and mesmerize never left my spell bar on any condition. if channeling checks become worse, enchanters will jut all run with 2 stuns, one always being flux. Everyone else with channeling gets fucked, though, enchanters will be just fine.

Yup, I almost always have color flux and mesmerize loaded unless going up against stun immune mobs like giants. Imagine them nerfing channeling and consequently nerfing all the non-enchanter casters. OP would need to be put on suicide watch :(

[Jimjam]

It’s 2021, I think you mean RSA’s scrum

Hah! Fair play! Maybe we’re on to something here? If NZ can get their boys back in their 20th Century form channelling will return to 20th century standards?

[azxten]

I'm convinced there are two core issues. Channeling which makes all soloing too successful and mob MR scaling or its impact on resists of all magic spells.

These two issues lead to easy non classic soloing and overpowered groups at lower levels and higher levels separately. As channeling success drastically improves mob MR was going up resulting in more resists for all CC spells.

There is some kind of very unique mob MR data from classic that will never be recovered. This MR is mentioned repeatedly in era posts and many mentions of which mobs had higher MR. Probably all undead had higher MR. Dwarves are mentioned oddly enough which impacts Velious some.

The other Enchanter problems are real but trivial by comparison to these two. The argument that Enchanters would be just fine with reduced channeling is laughable.

All casters should be nerfed by channeling fix. EQ was a social group focused game and the two core issues mentioned are why this is mostly missing on P99. It's why when groups do exist they pull larger camps than existed on live like in HHK. Everyone who casts a spell is overpowered and many mobs are underpowered. Probably planar mobs are all missing a plus 100 MR which is why no one charmed them and in era posts say it's only possible to mez them working as a team with debuffs etc even for trash mobs.

[Keebz]

I'm convinced there are two core issues. Channeling which makes all soloing too successful and mob MR scaling or its impact on resists of all magic spells.


I suspect Lull spells are also way too effective here. They were reworked to actually work in 2002, and it looks like whatever we have here is based off that version.

[Gustoo]

I know that harmony was fully the best spell ever on live and remains so here.

Not sure about enchanter lull line.

TBH harmony power on live makes me think that enchanter on P99 maybe working as intended, but pathing issues make enchanter life more manageable with the pets or something.

[Keebz]

I know that harmony was fully the best spell ever on live and remains so here.

Not sure about enchanter lull line.

TBH harmony power on live makes me think that enchanter on P99 maybe working as intended, but pathing issues make enchanter life more manageable with the pets or something.

The dev post (here (http://www.monkly-business.net/forums/showthread.php?627-Further-insulted) and here (http://www.wayfarersofveeshan.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=615)) talking about the change specifically talks about Harmony being historically awesome and Lull being historically crappy.

[bubur]

a man who suffers before it's necessary suffers more than is necessary

having goals is crucial but it's also important to put down the telescope

you wanna live in the hollywood hills, but your studio apartment isnt that bad. in researching this i learned 1/3 people across the world poop in holes in the ground

statistically that means at least 50 of the voters in this thread poop in holes. need i say more?

[G13]

Thread went from "Nerf Enchanters" to "Nerf Wizards"

[Toxigen]

i have faith you apes can beat this dead horse into 50 pages

[magnetaress]

A hardmode custom server were we neefed everything to what we thought were classic levels would be fun.

[Jimjam]

i have faith you apes can beat this dead horse into 50 pages

Thread has concluded: Yes, discrepancies in channelling, resists, connections and FPS may have made enchanters more powerful than classic, but nerfing these will also nerf all other classes.

Suggested action: Move to resolved, implement changes and may the Seventh Hammer judge our souls worthy.

[loramin]

Thread has concluded: Yes, discrepancies in channelling, resists, connections and FPS may have made enchanters more powerful than classic, but nerfing these will also nerf all other classes.

Suggested action: Move to resolved, implement changes and may the Seventh Hammer judge our souls worthy.

Or ... the devs could just up the charm resist chance by 20% (which, AFAIK, was originally based on guesswork anyway, and not exact evidence) ... tell no one ... and our server secretly gets closer to classic.

[loramin]

Thread went from "Nerf Enchanters" to "Nerf Wizards"

Agreed; somehow the focus on charming got lost. If anything we need to be nerfing Druids and Necromancers as a byproduct of any fix, not Wizards. Druids/Necros were known for their soloing power in classic, but not for the amazing power of their charms.

Fix charm and it's not "oh we accidentally nerf some other classes unclassicly", it's "the whole server goes back to when charm wasn't as powerful ... ie. the way it was on live".

[cd288]

Except the primary issue in charm being not as dangerous is channeling which will nerf all casting classes

[G13]

Agreed; somehow the focus on charming got lost. If anything we need to be nerfing Druids and Necromancers as a byproduct of any fix, not Wizards. Druids/Necros were known for their soloing power in classic, but not for the amazing power of their charms.

Fix charm and it's not "oh we accidentally nerf some other classes unclassicly", it's "the whole server goes back to when charm wasn't as powerful ... ie. the way it was on live".

You are using the same flawed reasoning as the OP

Just because they weren't known for the amazing power of their charms doesn't mean the spell wasn't as powerful back then. The vast majority of players just played differently back then as opposed to now. We have 20 years of trial and error gameplay to work with now. It can't be understated how important that is.

Reverse charming has only been a mainstream soloing tactic since around 2016 when the popularity of videos on youtube showed it's viability. The tactic was really more of a byproduct of the solo artist challenge when players devised new ways to conquer content solo with the tools of classes like necros, shamans and enchanters

Keep in mind that reverse charming does not require the pet to be held very long, so it's pointless to be pushing for a nerf in how long pets can be held. They don't need to be held for very long.

If the OP gets what he wants, Shamans will probably be nerfed harder than any other class. Keep that in mind.

[Jimjam]

Agreed; somehow the focus on charming got lost. If anything we need to be nerfing Druids and Necromancers as a byproduct of any fix, not Wizards. Druids/Necros were known for their soloing power in classic, but not for the amazing power of their charms.

Fix charm and it's not "oh we accidentally nerf some other classes unclassicly", it's "the whole server goes back to when charm wasn't as powerful ... ie. the way it was on live".

To do this change we will need a meta analysis of thousands of lines of unsourceable logs, which is the same standard as what the current implementation was held up to and not just bodged in as you claim(!)

[Byrjun]

Thread has concluded: Yes, discrepancies in channelling, resists, connections and FPS may have made enchanters more powerful than classic.

The biggest factor that I guess people forgot about is that everyone sucked in classic. Enchanters were near unanimously agreed upon to be the worst class in the game since mez was considered a garbage spell (what's the point of a stun that breaks on damage?) and charm was considered way more risk than it was worth.

You know how much worse groups are when you have players who don't understand not to break mez? Back in the day that was 90%+ of players. Enchanters could have been even more broken back then but no one would realize because the class requires that players know what they're doing.

[azxten]

You are using the same flawed reasoning as the OP

Just because they weren't known for the amazing power of their charms doesn't mean the spell wasn't as powerful back then. The vast majority of players just played differently back then as opposed to now. We have 20 years of trial and error gameplay to work with now. It can't be understated how important that is.

Reverse charming has only been a mainstream soloing tactic since around 2016 when the popularity of videos on youtube showed it's viability. The tactic was really more of a byproduct of the solo artist challenge when players devised new ways to conquer content solo with the tools of classes like necros, shamans and enchanters

Keep in mind that reverse charming does not require the pet to be held very long, so it's pointless to be pushing for a nerf in how long pets can be held. They don't need to be held for very long.

If the OP gets what he wants, Shamans will probably be nerfed harder than any other class. Keep that in mind.

Please stop derailing the thread. It is factually proven pre kunark charm was not used because it was very buggy as was any pet let alone a charmed one. Channeling was harder and pets were dangerous until later classic pre kunark. Big surprise once pet bugs were fixed they also got nerfed across the board.

I don't hear you arguing to allow fine steel delay for pets even though it's classic. Charm is the same. Once pets weren't killing their owners with trains verant saw they were OP and nerfed them.

Who charmed CT? A bard because a charm nerf on mob level cap was overlooked for them. Should we put this in game?

Charm was so buggy it practically didn't exist until late classic era. Your attempts to keep pushing the player knowledge angle are just derailing. Sure some players were bad but across dozens of live servers with 5x the population of P99 each where people killed guards cause no camps were open I assure you charm was thoroughly understood to be shitty. It was only a giant CC option at high level play and an outdoor zones with sow solo option. Rarely it is referred to as an emergency roll the dice CC on a bad pull that might save a group when it was already doomed. That is how little it was trusted. It was the thing to use when you were already going to die.

Also one thing to add, early Enchanters gave their animations fine steel and were massively pissed off about that nerf because they saw themselves as a pet class. There are tons of posts from them complaining about this and feeling worthless where they also openly state charm is unreliable garbage that gets them killed regardless of how high their CHA

An Enchanter who maxed CHA on creation for spell success and knew to give fine steel to their animation was just too dumb to charm a pet and give it fine steel instead? Come on...

A charmed fine steel buffed enchanter pet would have been an insane beast in classic but that narrative didn't exist. Instead Necro pets were considered to rule the high levels where they could even solo a 50 warrior in a duel.

Stop derailing. Everyone who is honest can admit pre kunark charm was nothing like P99 and our version is closer to Velious era. Even FOH in era post states the reason charm was used starting in Velious was the number of dungeons with room to kite and CC charmed mobs. Indoor dungeon charming in classic and kunark wasn't a thing except in certain situations like giants or emergency CC or at best temporary DPS that was killed end of fight due to the risk to chanter. All in era posts support this. There is nothing in classic era or referencing classic era that says otherwise.

The supposed guide mentioned previously as being in era and saying charm is great was called out as from POP era.

[G13]

Please stop derailing the thread. It is factually proven pre kunark charm was not used because it was very buggy as was any pet let alone a charmed one. Channeling was harder and pets were dangerous until later classic pre kunark. Big surprise once pet bugs were fixed they also got nerfed across the board.

I don't hear you arguing to allow fine steel delay for pets even though it's classic. Charm is the same. Once pets weren't killing their owners with trains verant saw they were OP and nerfed them.

Who charmed CT? A bard because a charm nerf on mob level cap was overlooked for them. Should we put this in game?

Charm was so buggy it practically didn't exist until late classic era. Your attempts to keep pushing the player knowledge angle are just derailing. Sure some players were bad but across dozens of live servers with 5x the population of P99 each where people killed guards cause no camps were open I assure you charm was thoroughly understood to be shitty. It was only a giant CC option at high level play and an outdoor zones with sow solo option. Rarely it is referred to as an emergency roll the dice CC on a bad pull that might save a group when it was already doomed. That is how little it was trusted. It was the thing to use when you were already going to die.

You haven't proven anything

You are attempting to create a narrative. You have yet to provide any "facts" within this thread and we're 30+ pages in

[azxten]

You haven't proven anything

You are attempting to create a narrative. You have yet to provide any "facts" within this thread and we're 30+ pages in

Except channeling which you then immediately try to say everyone will cry about it and enchanter won't even care blah blah blah. The same tired arguments on and on.

Sounds good. Nerf channeling I can't wait to play classic again. If Enchanters are fine that's great. We all know they won't be though. They're a paper thin class that doesn't start with multiple stuns.

Oh and that SK who saves you regularly with disease cloud? He's gonna be channeling too. So when your tank has a mob on them and mez breaks and your stun is being interrupted because you have two mobs on you and you can't cast he will also be interrupted.

Your delusions about Enchanters not caring about channeling rate and fear mongering that everyone will be nerfed are just that. Delusions and fear mongering in defiance of classic evidence.

[loramin]

If the OP gets what he wants, Shamans will probably be nerfed harder than any other class. Keep that in mind.

I literally don't care who gets nerfed: I saw the recent bug report about Torpor draining mana and it made me :D

What I care about is that this place is for classic EverQuest ... and charming clearly isn't classic here.

For the millionth time, the 20x Enchanter players on live tried using their spell list to do things; we do not have some secret knowledge they don't! What we have is too generous charm resist rolls, or some similar "hard to prove is wrong because no one has evidence of what exactly is right" core mechanic.

[G13]

Except channeling which you then immediately try to say everyone will cry about it and enchanter won't even care blah blah blah. The same tired arguments on and on.

Sounds good. Nerf channeling I can't wait to play classic again. If Enchanters are fine that's great. We all know they won't be though. They're a paper thin class that doesn't start with multiple stuns.

Oh and that SK who saves you regularly with disease cloud? He's gonna be channeling too. So when your tank has a mob on them and mez breaks and your stun is being interrupted because you have two mobs on you and you can't cast he will also be interrupted.

Your delusions about Enchanters not caring about channeling rate and fear mongering that everyone will be nerfed are just that. Delusions and fear mongering in defiance of classic evidence.

Nerfing channeling will have no impact on Enchanters

It will heavily nerf every other casting class however, so again, this thread is a complete waste of time

[TripSin]

Loramin and azxten aren't even worth discussing with. They are immune to reason and logic. This thread is an absolute clown fiesta created by a clown and the majority of people don't agree with them. This isn't the first time Azxten has made this thread and it won't be the last. Guy let's a private emulator of a 20-year-old elf sim trigger him for like 10 years now. It's so sad.

[G13]

I literally don't care who gets nerfed: I saw the recent bug report about Torpor draining mana and it made me :D

What I care about is that this place is for classic EverQuest ... and charming clearly isn't classic here.

For the millionth time, the 20x Enchanter players on live tried using their spell list to do things; we do not have some secret knowledge they don't! What we have is too generous charm resist rolls, or some similar "hard to prove is wrong because no one has evidence of what exactly is right" core mechanic.

Maybe you don't care, but I'm sure every other player that plays a shaman will

[cd288]

Loramin and azxten aren't even worth discussing with. They are immune to reason and logic. This thread is an absolute clown fiesta created by a clown and the majority of people don't agree with them. This isn't the first time Azxten has made this thread and it won't be the last. Guy let's a private emulator of a 20-year-old elf sim trigger him for like 10 years now. It's so sad.

Yeah this is the real thing people need to realize. Loramin quotes his own opinion as fact all the time: “everyone KNOWS”...he almost sounds like Trump sometimes lol. It’s pretty pointless to discuss with him.

[loramin]

Maybe you don't care, but I'm sure every other player that plays a shaman will

Maybe you don't care, but the entire point of this place is to emulate EverQuest circa 1999-2001.

[azxten]

Nerfing channeling will have no impact on Enchanters

It will heavily nerf every other casting class however, so again, this thread is a complete waste of time

Maybe you don't care, but I'm sure every other player that plays a shaman will

More proof the Enchanter defenders don't actually give a shit what is or isn't classic. The thread is a complete waste of time because channeling is too successful and it won't nerf Enchanter if we fix it? Are we talking about classic evidence and mechanics or are we purely talking about if Enchanter will or will not be nerfed by changing certain non classic mechanics? Since Shaman will care it means we shouldn't nerf channeling?

You went from "no evidence" to "this evidence/mechanic won't nerf Enchanter" to "Shaman will be upset so better not do it." Your statements above prove you don't actually care about fixing P99's core mechanics to more closely match live era classic. Please stop posting in my thread and shitting it up with your nonsense when you're on the record saying you don't care about classic evidence and mechanics if it doesn't hurt Enchanter in your opinion.

It will heavily nerf every other casting class however, so again, this thread is a complete waste of time

All you're focused on is protecting Enchanter. End of story. Fuck off please.

Why is it that all the Enchanter defenders don't like to talk about the AE limits, lifetap resists, hard cap spell resists, Bard charm, pet attack delay, and many other mechanics that are nerfed on P99 but provably existed in live?

We're supposed to believe that a Necro life tapping a hill giant at any level is way too powerful but swarms of charmed Enchanter pets in planes clearing mobs is totally legit and classic so should be left alone.

Don't forget there is two angles to this. Charm mechanics and classic era is one. The other is that many, many classic mechanics are nerfed on P99 with the given reason of technical limitations, too powerful, and so on. Why is charm not in line with these other nerfs?

The answer is that it is in line and is clearly trivializing content on P99 no matter how classic it may be. We also know, factually, with direct patch note evidence, that charm did not work like it does on P99 due to the simple mention that the charm messages weren't accurate or timely and that it was supposedly fixed.

No doubt the Enchanter defender response to this is, "It doesn't matter. I don't even look at those messages. I'll just look and see if my pet breaks. You really think this will nerf Enchanters?" On and on their bullshit excuses go about how any one of the thousand cuts that Enchanter deserves to be made more classic won't actually limit them in any way, at any level, in any era.

"I don't even look at charm messages."

"I don't even use channeling because I have stun."

"I don't even use animations at any level even before charm."

Sure buddies. Sure you don't.

Waiting for your apologies from all of you as you repeatedly try to say there is no evidence, we just point right back to the proven things with hard evidence, you say those things won't even hurt Enchanter, we say that's fine go ahead and nerf it then, and then you're back to saying there is no evidence.

The circular argument and refusal to acknowledge the several issues with actual evidence like charm messages, animation HP, and channeling is tedious. However, I am confident that as tedious as it is it will all be worth it in the end when you and many other classes are nerfed and we get a more classic experience.

[G13]

Maybe you don't care, but the entire point of this place is to emulate EverQuest circa 1999-2001.

As far as I'm aware it is doing so

Neither you are the OP can prove otherwise

Originally posted by Keebz:

You went from "no evidence" to "this evidence/mechanic won't nerf Enchanter" to "Shaman will be upset so better not do it." Your statements above prove you don't actually care about fixing P99's core mechanics to more closely match live era classic. Please stop posting in my thread and shitting it up with your nonsense when you're on the record saying you don't care about classic evidence and mechanics if it doesn't hurt Enchanter in your opinion.

I remain unconvinced in regards to everything

You have provided no facts - just emotional reasoning in an effort to create a narrative to fool the devs into making changes you want

I just find it amusing and ironic that what you are trying to accomplish would have no real impact on the class you are trying to nerf

It would however severely nerf every other casting class heavily

[magnetaress]

Loramin is a great guy and instrumental to the server u guys got now.

Take a step back and take some deep breaths.

[cd288]

More proof the Enchanter defenders don't actually give a shit what is or isn't classic. The thread is a complete waste of time because channeling is too successful and it won't nerf Enchanter if we fix it? Are we talking about classic evidence and mechanics or are we purely talking about if Enchanter will or will not be nerfed by changing certain non classic mechanics? Since Shaman will care it means we shouldn't nerf channeling?

You went from "no evidence" to "this evidence/mechanic won't nerf Enchanter" to "Shaman will be upset so better not do it." Your statements above prove you don't actually care about fixing P99's core mechanics to more closely match live era classic. Please stop posting in my thread and shitting it up with your nonsense when you're on the record saying you don't care about classic evidence and mechanics if it doesn't hurt Enchanter in your opinion.



All you're focused on is protecting Enchanter. End of story. Fuck off please.

Why is it that all the Enchanter defenders don't like to talk about the AE limits, lifetap resists, hard cap spell resists, Bard charm, pet attack delay, and many other mechanics that are nerfed on P99 but provably existed in live?

We're supposed to believe that a Necro life tapping a hill giant at any level is way too powerful but swarms of charmed Enchanter pets in planes clearing mobs is totally legit and classic so should be left alone.

Don't forget there is two angles to this. Charm mechanics and classic era is one. The other is that many, many classic mechanics are nerfed on P99 with the given reason of technical limitations, too powerful, and so on. Why is charm not in line with these other nerfs?

The answer is that it is in line and is clearly trivializing content on P99 no matter how classic it may be. We also know, factually, with direct patch note evidence, that charm did not work like it does on P99 due to the simple mention that the charm messages weren't accurate or timely and that it was supposedly fixed.

No doubt the Enchanter defender response to this is, "It doesn't matter. I don't even look at those messages. I'll just look and see if my pet breaks. You really think this will nerf Enchanters?" On and on their bullshit excuses go about how any one of the thousand cuts that Enchanter deserves to be made more classic won't actually limit them in any way, at any level, in any era.

"I don't even look at charm messages."

"I don't even use channeling because I have stun."

"I don't even use animations at any level even before charm."

Sure buddies. Sure you don't.

Waiting for your apologies from all of you as you repeatedly try to say there is no evidence, we just point right back to the proven things with hard evidence, you say those things won't even hurt Enchanter, we say that's fine go ahead and nerf it then, and then you're back to saying there is no evidence.

The circular argument and refusal to acknowledge the several issues with actual evidence like charm messages, animation HP, and channeling is tedious. However, I am confident that as tedious as it is it will all be worth it in the end when you and many other classes are nerfed and we get a more classic experience.

Imagine being so upset about a private emulated server of a 22 year old game that you write something this long

[azxten]

As far as I'm aware it is doing so

Neither you are the OP can prove otherwise

Originally posted by Keebz:



I remain unconvinced in regards to everything

You have provided no facts - just emotional reasoning in an effort to create a narrative to fool the devs into making changes you want

I just find it amusing and ironic that what you are trying to accomplish would have no real impact on the class you are trying to nerf

It would however severely nerf every other casting class heavily

lol.. you still think I'm Keebz...

Ok, the decompile of an actual EQ client by a TAKP dev isn't evidence. The literal patch message from Verant/Sony about the broken charm messages isn't evidence. Whatever you want to believe. Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

[azxten]

Imagine being so upset about a private emulated server of a 22 year old game that you write something this long

Imagine thinking 500 words is long. Also I'm not upset, I'm having fun, forums are better than game.

[G13]

lol.. you still think I'm Keebz...

Ok, the decompile of an actual EQ client by a TAKP dev isn't evidence. The literal patch message from Verant/Sony about the broken charm messages isn't evidence. Whatever you want to believe. Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

No, neither of those are "evidence"

Maybe your standards of what evidence is are in the toilet, but mine are not

TAKP is also an emulated server - so out the window it goes

Charm messages in patch notes is not evidence of charm reliability. Could be a bug with the message itself that has nothing to do with mechanics. We would need direct access to the original code and mountains and mountains of testing data once we had it

So we're back to nerfing all casting classes with enchanters really not being affected

This is problem with empowering over zealous players like Dolalin and Keebz. Once you give them a taste that they can make big changes to a class, they won't stop. They start LARPING as P99 Devs

[loramin]

Loramin is a great guy and instrumental to the server u guys got now.

Take a step back and take some deep breaths.

Thanks! :D I wouldn't say "instrumental to the server", but I like to think I've done some helpful stuff on the wiki.

But really, let's all try and shift away from the personal flames stuff. This isn't about whether you like or dislike me, or azxten, or people with weird names with numbers in them (G13, CD288, etc.) And it's also not about your personal favorite class, or whether that class (or any other) gets "nerfed".

What it's about ... or at least what it should be about ... is very, very simple: is our game the same as the game people played in '99-'01? If you don't care about that ... if you're not arguing, honestly, for classic EQ ... you are a selfish asshole.

Why? Because Rogean, Nilbog and lots of other hard working volunteers have literally given years of their life to try and make this place as classic as possible. If you take advantage of that largess, and have a ton of fun on their server, but then you active lobby against the one goal all those people share, for your own personal reasons (ie. some class you like might get nerfed) ... you're a selfish asshole.

[azxten]

TAKP is also an emulated server - so out the window it goes

A decompile of the actual EQ client by a TAKP dev. Has nothing to do with TAKP or emulation.

Charm messages in patch notes is not evidence of charm reliability. Could be a bug with the message itself that has nothing to do with mechanics.

Yes, that is what was said. Again you're so focused on the only discussion being "Enchanter charm" that apparently even charm messaging is unrelated in your mind. Pretty odd.

An Enchanter with actual channeling rates and no reliable charm messaging is already going to have a more difficult time charming. The level of difficulty is arguable but it will undeniably make it more difficult than it is today. Those two issues are proven non-classic mechanics on P99. End of story. Now all you have to do is agree, and have your own opinion on how much impact those changes will really have, and we can have consensus about at least 2 things that need to be fixed.

[G13]

A decompile of the actual EQ client by a TAKP dev. Has nothing to do with TAKP or emulation.

It isn't the direct actual code itself

Out it goes

I don't think P99 Devs will want to use TAKP data to make "classic changes" - Good Luck with that

Yes, that is what was said. Again you're so focused on the only discussion being "Enchanter charm" that apparently even charm messaging is unrelated in your mind. Pretty odd.

The message itself as text could be the actual bug and not the mechanics, hence why we would need direct access to the original code and mountains of testing data to confirm

This is why they had QA testers. P99 doesn't have that.

An Enchanter with actual channeling rates and no reliable charm messaging is already going to have a more difficult time charming. The level of difficulty is arguable but it will undeniably make it more difficult than it is today. Those two issues are proven non-classic mechanics on P99. End of story. Now all you have to do is agree, and have your own opinion on how much impact those changes will really have, and we can have consensus about at least 2 things that need to be fixed.

You haven't even come within throwing distance of proving anything

You are engaging in emotional reasoning. This is indicative by the fact you keep using absolutist phrasing like "everybody knows", "end of story" ect. because you are pushing a narrative, not making a factual argument with solid data to back it up

[azxten]

It isn't the direct actual code itself

Yes, it is. Decompiled code is the actual game code. You're just showing you're technically illiterate on the matter.

The message itself as text could be the actual bug and not the mechanics

For the tenth time, yes, that is the bug. The text messages didn't work and weren't timely. No further verification is needed it's clearly stated in the official patch notes and in era posts by players.

Go ahead and make the obvious rebuttal I already made for you above about how that doesn't matter and won't change anything. Same as you say about channeling.


You haven't even come within throwing distance of proving anything

By your standard nothing can be proven.

You are engaging in emotional reasoning. This is indicative by the fact you keep using absolutist phrasing like "everybody knows", "end of story" ect. because you are pushing a narrative, not making a factual argument with solid data to back it up

You think decompiled client code isn't game code. You're an idiot. Your opinions of the relevancy of such evidence are moot as revealed by such a dumb statement. You're unable to decouple my generalized statements about things from the actual evidence presented because you have a single track mind. This was already demonstrated above when you said charm messaging may not impact charm duration or whatever. Yeah, no shit, you're completely 100% focused on the very basic mechanics of the charm spell and anything like messaging, bugged pets, mob resist rates, classic v kunark v velious, enchanter level, channeling, and so on is totally irrelevant because you're sure your charm spell mechanics will save you through it all.

Please respond to these three points:

1. Why did you state this whole discussion is pointless because if channeling is too successful and nerfed it won't hurt Enchanter anyway? This statement reveals your true intent and perspective on classic evidence.

2. Why does it matter if charm worked this way in classic? Charm is clearly trivializing and overpowered in the same way that AE groups, Bard AE, unresistable life taps, no hard spell resist cap, pet attack delay, and countless other PROVEN classic mechanics which were nerfed on P99 are.

3. Since it is proven that Bards charmed CT in classic era, should we restore this ability to Bard since it existed on live and ignore Bards clearing planes with charmed gods in the same way we ignore Enchanter clearing planes with charmed trash mobs?

My perspective is that this conversation is obviously pointless because you and the other defenders of Enchanter aren't willing to have an honest discussion. To you all evidence is insufficient, any consideration of how other classes are non classically nerfed should be ignored, and if the evidence becomes overwhelming in regards to certain things like channeling you just pretend it won't have any impact anyway and then when confronted about such a claim you revert back to saying there is no evidence. Prove me wrong without continuing to make ad hom attacks and selectively ignoring things about your own claims and the larger discussion about game balance in light of how other things have been nerfed.

[G13]

Yes, it is. Decompiled code is the actual game code. You're just showing you're technically illiterate on the matter.

Nay

TAKP would be considered the source. Not Verant/SOE itself

Again, this is another example of your complete lack of standards to get what you want

For the tenth time, yes, that is the bug. The text messages didn't work and weren't timely. No further verification is needed it's clearly stated in the official patch notes and in era posts by players.

Go ahead and make the obvious rebuttal I already made for you above about how that doesn't matter and won't change anything. Same as you say about channeling.

Text messages bugged doesn't mean Charm was as unreliable as you claim (For the 10th time)


By your standard nothing can be proven.

I stated repeatedly what my standards are. They haven't been met. I'm not just looking out for enchanters. I don't want to see shamans and wizards nerfed either because of you. It really bothers me when players try to get classes nerfed with forum campaigns using narratives and endless whining.

You think decompiled client code isn't game code. You're an idiot. Your opinions of the relevancy of such evidence are moot as revealed by such a dumb statement. You're unable to decouple my generalized statements about things from the actual evidence presented because you have a single track mind. This was already demonstrated above when you said charm messaging may not impact charm duration or whatever. Yeah, no shit, you're completely 100% focused on the very basic mechanics of the charm spell and anything like messaging, bugged pets, mob resist rates, classic v kunark v velious, enchanter level, channeling, and so on is totally irrelevant because you're sure your charm spell mechanics will save you through it all.

TAKP is TAKP

Not a credible source as it relates to P99

/flush

Please respond to these three points:

1. Why did you state this whole discussion is pointless because if channeling is too successful and nerfed it won't hurt Enchanter anyway? This statement reveals your true intent and perspective on classic evidence.

2. Why does it matter if charm worked this way in classic? Charm is clearly trivializing and overpowered in the same way that AE groups, Bard AE, unresistable life taps, no hard spell resist cap, pet attack delay, and countless other PROVEN classic mechanics which were nerfed on P99 are.

3. Since it is proven that Bards charmed CT in classic era, should we restore this ability to Bard since it existed on live and ignore Bards clearing planes with charmed gods in the same way we ignore Enchanter clearing planes with charmed trash mobs?

My perspective is that this conversation is obviously pointless because you and the other defenders of Enchanter aren't willing to have an honest discussion. To you all evidence is insufficient, any consideration of how other classes are non classically nerfed should be ignored, and if the evidence becomes overwhelming in regards to certain things like channeling you just pretend it won't have any impact anyway and then when confronted about such a claim you revert back to saying there is no evidence. Prove me wrong without continuing to make ad hom attacks and selectively ignoring things about your own claims and the larger discussion about game balance in light of how other things have been nerfed.

Projection Projection Projection

I'm not the one demanding a all casting classes be nerfed. YOU ARE. The burden of proof is on YOU. So far you have failed miserably at proving your case.

You keep throwing out red herrings with a complete lack of evidence

The discussion YOU brought up is Enchanters, not Bards (pick a class you want to nerf and stick with it)

That's the problem, your proposed changes will not really have a major impact on Enchanters. It will nerf every other casting class big time and I find that ironic and hilarious

I don't think Enchanters trivialize content. Skilled players who utilize the tools the class was developed with can be quite powerful, but there is still a high risk of death (not to mention an insane amount of OCD spell swapping) involved in playing the class at that level

[Jimjam]

Maybe you don't care, but I'm sure every other player that plays a shaman will

You do understand the entire point of this server is electronical experimental archaeology?

Loramin and azxten aren't even worth discussing with. They are immune to reason and logic. This thread is an absolute clown fiesta created by a clown and the majority of people don't agree with them. This isn't the first time Azxten has made this thread and it won't be the last. Guy let's a private emulator of a 20-year-old elf sim trigger him for like 10 years now. It's so sad.

Nirgon is right though, the squeeky elf gets the oil.

Years ago I found some info that made me realise maybe vendors shouldn't be able to be charmed. I posted what I could found, forgot about it and moved on.

More recently I stumbled upon some more details, so posted about it again, and it got more attention, and eventually got patched out until someone could prove any merchants could be charmed in our era (I'm still looking for evidence of that).

Keep accruing every anecdote, data and witness statement each way. I know this saying is not quite true, but "the plural of anecdote is data".

If the current implementation is closer to classic than any proposed changes it should be easy to find more evidence for that argument.

lol.. you still think I'm Keebz...

Ok, the decompile of an actual EQ client by a TAKP dev isn't evidence. The literal patch message from Verant/Sony about the broken charm messages isn't evidence. Whatever you want to believe. Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

It's nuts, cos it wouldn't even matter if we were.

[cd288]

Thanks! :D I wouldn't say "instrumental to the server", but I like to think I've done some helpful stuff on the wiki.

But really, let's all try and shift away from the personal flames stuff. This isn't about whether you like or dislike me, or azxten, or people with weird names with numbers in them (G13, CD288, etc.) And it's also not about your personal favorite class, or whether that class (or any other) gets "nerfed".

What it's about ... or at least what it should be about ... is very, very simple: is our game the same as the game people played in '99-'01? If you don't care about that ... if you're not arguing, honestly, for classic EQ ... you are a selfish asshole.

Why? Because Rogean, Nilbog and lots of other hard working volunteers have literally given years of their life to try and make this place as classic as possible. If you take advantage of that largess, and have a ton of fun on their server, but then you active lobby against the one goal all those people share, for your own personal reasons (ie. some class you like might get nerfed) ... you're a selfish asshole.

Except technically you’re lobbying against it because most of the time your “evidence” is your own personal memory and you claim everyone had the same experience back in the day that you did. It’s quite possible that your memory is flawed or you simply had an experience that was an outlier and to change things to what you believe them to be might make the server less classic.

If you care so much about it being as classic as possible then your standards should be actual legitimate evidence such as patch notes or dev statements. Yet I feel like half the time I see you say “EVERYONE KNOWS it was X” as though that’s a proven point lol

[Jimjam]

Except technically you’re lobbying against it because most of the time your “evidence” is your own personal memory and you claim everyone had the same experience back in the day that you did. It’s quite possible that your memory is flawed or you simply had an experience that was an outlier and to change things to what you believe them to be might make the server less classic.

If you care so much about it being as classic as possible then your standards should be actual legitimate evidence such as patch notes or dev statements. Yet I feel like half the time I see you say “EVERYONE KNOWS it was X” as though that’s a proven point lol

"Hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence" Lionel Hutz (https://www.simpsonsarchive.com/guides/hutz.file.html)

[bubur]

A couple suggestions were detected several pages back

I will be the first to break it to you that nerfing channeling and increasing the resist rate of charm will not stop enchanters from charming

You can put some obstacles up but players will not just ditch the whole thing and start being mez and c bots. It is, to me, the biggest observable proof that indeed players do know something, many things, that we didn't know in 1999. 20 years of experience is not going away on this

Tldr; cat is out of the bag. At this point if bothers you so much, the suggestion you should be making is to delete charm from the game

[DMN]

Or ... the devs could just up the charm resist chance by 20% (which, AFAIK, was originally based on guesswork anyway, and not exact evidence) ... tell no one ... and our server secretly gets closer to classic.

Right after they cap bard AoE to 4 and return the mana drain nerf on torpor, right? The samed nerfed version that for some mysterious reason was't included non green already yet should ahve existed the vast majority of kunark? We will just keep that permanently. I mean never saw a shaman solo jack shit worth mentioning nor a bard kitting dozens of mobs it. So that didn't happen. Nerf it all. OH and I never saw monk, warrior, or rogue solo anything worth exp to at level 60 without using a discipline. Nerf them, too. Am I doing this right?



Please stop derailing the thread. It is factually proven pre kunark charm was not used because it was very buggy as was any pet let alone a charmed one. Channeling was harder and pets were dangerous until later classic pre kunark. Big surprise once pet bugs were fixed they also got nerfed across the board.

You've proven nothing of the sort. Factually? LOL. What a clown. The game was full of bugs for most of vanilla.



Who charmed CT? A bard because a charm nerf on mob level cap was overlooked for them. Should we put this in game?

Probably not because it was a very short lived bug and eve f if they bothered with it, it would never be used for anything on green in the short time period it was around for.


Charm was so buggy it practically didn't exist until late classic era.

You are getting tedious with this "buggy" bullshit. Everything was buggy. Where should the bugs end and begin?


I assure you charm was thoroughly understood to be shitty.

Ya when I was soloing the ghoul lord with it, all I could think of is "gee, how shitty this spell is". You certainly know what you are talking about.




My perspective is that this conversation is obviously pointless because you and the other defenders of Enchanter aren't willing to have an honest discussion.

Honest? LOL. That word shouldn't never escape your lying mouth. You've reputedly made thread and blatantly lied about easily provable elements of both classic and P99. Like the enchanter pets, which you've even continue to lie about despite it being easily to verify your lies. The truth is your the one whoi s coming at this with a massive bias, and you don't really care how badly you fuck up the server, just so you can somehow sate your bizarre erf enchanters fixation, while out of the other side of your lying mouth you criticize me for trying to get the correct version of torpor in the game for the time period.

[cd288]

A couple suggestions were detected several pages back

I will be the first to break it to you that nerfing channeling and increasing the resist rate of charm will not stop enchanters from charming

You can put some obstacles up but players will not just ditch the whole thing and start being mez and c bots. It is, to me, the biggest observable proof that indeed players do know something, many things, that we didn't know in 1999. 20 years of experience is not going away on this

Tldr; cat is out of the bag. At this point if bothers you so much, the suggestion you should be making is to delete charm from the game

I mean the simple fact of the matter is channeling is apparently not fixable. So unless you nerf channeling then nerfs to anything else are pointless because even if you increased charm break frequency it’s really not a big deal if charm breaks because an Ench can cast through being hit (if they even get hit at all given they may be at max range in certain circumstances) so they can easily stun and mez the mob before they can even put a dent in the Rune shield.

Not to mention the fact that everyone uses clickies to clear the global CD making them able to chain cast instantly thus reducing risk even further. Without a nerf to channeling no other nerf will decrease charm usage. Cue Loramin trumpesque statement “EVERYONE KNOWS clickies weren’t used to clear GCD back in the day”...so we should eliminate that ability altogether right?

[Keebz]

even if you increased charm break frequency it’s really not a big deal if charm breaks because an Ench can cast through being hit (if they even get hit at all given they may be at max range in certain circumstances) so they can easily stun and mez the mob before they can even put a dent in the Rune shield.


I think that's fine? If it's slightly more classic that's a win imho.

I suspect Enchanter OP-ness largely stems from Charm/Lull/Channeling each being a little too consistent. Even if we can't fix the last one, maybe the first two are addressable.

[DMN]

Half the classes in EQ have some kind of lull. No one has provided a single shred of evidence that anything is off about them on p99.

Half of the classes in EQ have some kind of charm. No one has provided a single shred of evidence that anything is of about p99.

If you want to cross the rubicon in artificially throttling the players/client to make it more classic, know what you are getting into.

This thread should be called.

"nerf people better than me at elf sim"

[Keebz]

People have provided plenty of shreds of evidence, but not up to your standards, which is apparently "thousands of lines" of parses and access to the "source code".

[G13]

People have provided plenty of shreds of evidence, but not up to your standards, which is apparently "thousands of lines" of parses and access to the "source code".

/wave Azxten

[cd288]

I think that's fine? If it's slightly more classic that's a win imho.

I suspect Enchanter OP-ness largely stems from Charm/Lull/Channeling each being a little too consistent. Even if we can't fix the last one, maybe the first two are addressable.

But you’re missing the point of what OP wants done. He wants enchanters essentially completely incapable of charming as an EXP method (really what this probably is about is that he doesn’t want Enchanters to be able to break certain loot camps so that he doesn’t have to compete with them). So making it slightly more difficult wouldn’t satisfy him. That’s why this whole conversation is ultimately pointless.

[Vivitron]

Where was it stated they couldn't change channeling? Naively it looks like a server side thing and I don't see any dev comments on the open issue (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=343453).

[Snortles Chortles]

idk i wiped a few times with a pretty pro enc the other night, might not be as OP as the claims based on my own recent charming experience

[rdfg87]

I didn't make a chanter on Live till Luclin but I was charm soloing all the way back in the day. Does not need nerf.. On live today still u can charm better than P99.

[Izmael]

Lol that reminds me of that one time I took a friend on his cleric to HS west wing to get him some exp, on my 60 enc a couple years ago.

I usually sleepwalk through this place, leveled so many toons there.

Ended up wiping with just two mobs + my pet (not even a good one!) at the trap area (not even a tricky spot!).

Sometimes you just get unlucky, get interrupted / bashed, and your HP's go to zero, and you can't do anything about it. It was so embarassing though.

[Jimjam]

Lol that reminds me of that one time I took a friend on his cleric to HS west wing to get him some exp, on my 60 enc a couple years ago.

I usually sleepwalk through this place, leveled so many toons there.

Ended up wiping with just two mobs + my pet (not even a good one!) at the trap area (not even a tricky spot!).

Sometimes you just get unlucky, get interrupted / bashed, and your HP's go to zero, and you can't do anything about it. It was so embarassing though.

Performance anxiety is a thing!

On live I had a 70 war. I would farm AA by running around The Hole, picking up every single ghost/golem in the zone, popping some vet abilities, activating furious (riposte disc) and clicking rampage (no shaker page sadly, this was after that nerf). Was a solid way to make 14-30 AA in a pull. One time a friend came to watch and I died as I hit furious too late (which never happened before ;)). I swear having a second person in zone / region seems to add a lot more lag compared to doing these singly.

Man, Hole was really abandoned on live for years. I always found it to be an XP goldmine. I'm glad it gets the love it deserves here!

[azxten]

/wave Azxten

sup

[azxten]

But you’re missing the point of what OP wants done. He wants enchanters essentially completely incapable of charming as an EXP method (really what this probably is about is that he doesn’t want Enchanters to be able to break certain loot camps so that he doesn’t have to compete with them). So making it slightly more difficult wouldn’t satisfy him. That’s why this whole conversation is ultimately pointless.

false... lol ive repeatedly said post kunark chanter is fine as is other than lower lvl channeling

[Vexenu]

It's amusing to see people talking about Enchanters on P1999 taking skill to play. I mean, they certainly require a modest amount of understanding of the mechanics of the game. But once you clear that bar it's smooth sailing. With the current unclassic state of charm they are, in fact, hilariously easy and overpowered to the extent that they become boring. It's like deer hunting with a machine gun. The fact that so many people will defend this state of affairs shows quite clearly that they are more interested in bagging as many deer as possible than they are in engaging in a traditional sporting contest. One might actually be able to respect such people if they simply came out and said, "You know what, shooting deer with machine guns admittedly isn't traditional or sporting. But it's really fucking fun, ok?" But instead we must endure this tired chorus about how machine-gunning deer is, in fact, traditional and how it was always done this way. Yawn. It's all so tiresome.

[cd288]

It's amusing to see people talking about Enchanters on P1999 taking skill to play. I mean, they certainly require a modest amount of understanding of the mechanics of the game. But once you clear that bar it's smooth sailing. With the current unclassic state of charm they are, in fact, hilariously easy and overpowered to the extent that they become boring. It's like deer hunting with a machine gun. The fact that so many people will defend this state of affairs shows quite clearly that they are more interested in bagging as many deer as possible than they are in engaging in a traditional sporting contest. One might actually be able to respect such people if they simply came out and said, "You know what, shooting deer with machine guns admittedly isn't traditional or sporting. But it's really fucking fun, ok?" But instead we must endure this tired chorus about how machine-gunning deer is, in fact, traditional and how it was always done this way. Yawn. It's all so tiresome.

I’m totally happy to see changes and nerfs if there’s evidence for it. The only thing we have evidence for is channeling. If charm is broken provide dev statements and patch notes and post it in the bug forum

[loramin]

I’m totally happy to see changes and nerfs


https://i.imgur.com/Ufbr5ej.gif

[DMN]

It's amusing to see people talking about Enchanters on P1999 taking skill to play. I mean, they certainly require a modest amount of understanding of the mechanics of the game. But once you clear that bar it's smooth sailing. With the current unclassic state of charm they are, in fact, hilariously easy and overpowered to the extent that they become boring. It's like deer hunting with a machine gun. The fact that so many people will defend this state of affairs shows quite clearly that they are more interested in bagging as many deer as possible than they are in engaging in a traditional sporting contest. One might actually be able to respect such people if they simply came out and said, "You know what, shooting deer with machine guns admittedly isn't traditional or sporting. But it's really fucking fun, ok?" But instead we must endure this tired chorus about how machine-gunning deer is, in fact, traditional and how it was always done this way. Yawn. It's all so tiresome.

Knows nothing about enchanters on p99, nothing about charm on p99, nothing about classic enchanters, and nothing about classic charm. At least you are consistent.

[cd288]

https://i.imgur.com/Ufbr5ej.gif

Sorry that your own memory and contradictory 21 year old posts don’t seem compelling to me. Find real evidence.

I don’t even play an enchanter. I just don’t like when people like you and OP complain but display no real evidence beyond channeling

[cd288]

false... lol ive repeatedly said post kunark chanter is fine as is other than lower lvl channeling

I’d respect you more if you just admitted to your real motivations. The fact of the matter is I’ve leveled multiple characters on green and never had an issue finding places to exp. There’s not some epidemic of charming enchanters hogging all the exp spots so that’s no problem. What I think you’re really after is that because enchanters can charm they can compete for certain valuable loot camps with you and you don’t like it; so you want them to nerf enchanters so that you can more easily monopolize a valuable camp to farm loot to sell in EC. If you admitted to your true motivation here I think people would respect your opinion more.

[azxten]

I’d respect you more if you just admitted to your real motivations. The fact of the matter is I’ve leveled multiple characters on green and never had an issue finding places to exp. There’s not some epidemic of charming enchanters hogging all the exp spots so that’s no problem. What I think you’re really after is that because enchanters can charm they can compete for certain valuable loot camps with you and you don’t like it; so you want them to nerf enchanters so that you can more easily monopolize a valuable camp to farm loot to sell in EC. If you admitted to your true motivation here I think people would respect your opinion more.

You're such an idiot. Throughout this entire thread I've repeatedly tried to tell idiots like you that Enchanter at level 50+ will basically be exactly the same as it is today so I don't know why they're crying so much. Even channeling is likely correct at high levels already. My focus is on the ease of leveling from 1-50 and how Enchanters carry groups in a non classic manner.

You have just come in here calling me names for like 50 pages now and making up totally retarded conspiracy theories. If I'm trying to somehow monopolize item camps why would I continually say Enchanter 50+ is fine? In fact the only 50+ Enchanter thing that bothers me is their ability to charm in planes and other raid content because it trivializes that content and throws off the entire game design.

My motivation is to make P99 classically difficult so I can enjoy playing again. I don't care who or what gets nerfed. If I was in charge I'd immediately nerf charming raid content pre-kunark, fix channeling, nerf item recharging, nerf Torpor to classic, and set ZEMs to the known classic values. P99 would be about 10x more fun if this happened. It wouldn't be fun for losers like you who want to be easily carried to max level so you can AFK for raid drops and solo item camps without a group but for the rest of us it would be great.

[DMN]

Charming is pretty garby pre-mid 30s/maybe a bit lower if grouped and if you can easily access appropriate leveled rogue charms. So this fixation of yours is mainly about making ~15 levels more difficult? ROFLMAO.

And if charming is the real issue and specifically at lower levels, why have you gone as far as blatantly lying about the how animations have too many HPs? I mean, that's the one thing they might actually use in lieu of this supposed OP charming ability that you allegedly have a problem with.

I think you are full of shit, frankly, and don't believe a word out of you mouth.

[Vexenu]

Knows nothing about enchanters on p99, nothing about charm on p99, nothing about classic enchanters, and nothing about classic charm. At least you are consistent.

Sick burn. Go ahead and post more made up stories about your renowned exploits in classic for everyone to laugh at, please.

[loramin]

Everyone here loves to attack the messenger; I wonder what that says about the message ...

[DMN]

Sick burn. Go ahead and post more made up stories about your renowned exploits in classic for everyone to laugh at, please.

Don't be jelly I was better at elf sim even before I had pubes than you will ever be.

[DMN]

Everyone here loves to attack the messenger; I wonder what that says about the message ...

Tends to come with the territory when your message is a profoundly dumb one.

[Toxigen]

go outside

[cd288]

You're such an idiot. Throughout this entire thread I've repeatedly tried to tell idiots like you that Enchanter at level 50+ will basically be exactly the same as it is today so I don't know why they're crying so much. Even channeling is likely correct at high levels already. My focus is on the ease of leveling from 1-50 and how Enchanters carry groups in a non classic manner.

You have just come in here calling me names for like 50 pages now and making up totally retarded conspiracy theories. If I'm trying to somehow monopolize item camps why would I continually say Enchanter 50+ is fine? In fact the only 50+ Enchanter thing that bothers me is their ability to charm in planes and other raid content because it trivializes that content and throws off the entire game design.

My motivation is to make P99 classically difficult so I can enjoy playing again. I don't care who or what gets nerfed. If I was in charge I'd immediately nerf charming raid content pre-kunark, fix channeling, nerf item recharging, nerf Torpor to classic, and set ZEMs to the known classic values. P99 would be about 10x more fun if this happened. It wouldn't be fun for losers like you who want to be easily carried to max level so you can AFK for raid drops and solo item camps without a group but for the rest of us it would be great.

Tbh ive almost never seen charming be something that carries a group. Almost every group I’ve been in would be totally fine without the dps from a charmed mob...it’s the Clarity and other buffs that makes the group more efficient lol. Most groups have either a monk and a rogue, or multiple of them, plus a mage etc. The charm DPS is certainly nice but it’s hardly something that the group needs or they’d be like way less efficient.

Such a gross exaggeration on your part lol

[cd288]

Everyone here loves to attack the messenger; I wonder what that says about the message ...

Bring actual evidence other than your own opinion stated as fact and no one would attack you. As usual though you’re posting in this forum and not the bug forum because you have no real evidence

[bubur]

i think my suggestion of this annual thread of last year could work

if we can find a way to require everyone that signs into p99 to accept a lobotomy that makes them think like a 16 year old who has no sense or expectation of what an mmorpg is, we would have a better idea of what it was really like. or if we cant figure that whole thing just hit them in the head really hard

also i recall the ui being a little more clunky with less hotkey support but i think we can simulate that with a few amputated fingers

the target we're after is 40% of the playerbase rolling warriors, like real classic

[Jimjam]

There definitely is an element of player knowledge.

People have been playing p1999 (and previously EQ) for up to a decade (or longer).

Everyone has seen enchanters using charm, PB stunning and using that to buy time to get things back under control.

Back in 1999-2000, this was rare to see, so charmers had to play under their initiative instead of looting an existing schema. This, coupled with the oft complained of AI issues of pets in early eq meant charm was rarely used, and there were few good examples to emulate.

By 2001, pets seem to be much better behaved, and players are starting to work out and share charm strategies, here is a necromancer post I found Nov 18, 2001 on alt.games.everquest google groups:

Lets say you see two mobs that you would like to kill, for loot and
experience.

You and good old Gabn face off with the two of them, you may find yourself
petless and with two still angry mobs on you... Gabn can't really take two
mobs down all that reliably, although with some luck with fear and snare
and dots you may pull it off after all.

An alternative approach, though is to charm one of the pair, and help it
kill
the other. By the time the target is dead, your "pet" is also likely fairly

hurt... by design, you spend only enough mana to tip the odds in favor
of your pet. Break that charm (or wait for it to break on its own) and you
face an angry, but easily killed, former pet.

For the cost of a charm and enough mana to do a "finishing shot" to two
mobs, you get two kills.

As you note, things don't always work as hoped with this plan, charm
may break and leave you facing both mobs with -no- pet, or the target
may kill your pet while it is still charmed, shorting you of exp and loot
(the charmed mob will poof just like Gabn will if he's killed)

It is advisable to root or snare your charm target before charming it,
so you don't have such worries when things break. Being on SOW
also helps a lot here. I'm not sure necros can charm a necro snared
mob, isn't that a DOT?

Really, by Velious charm should be a viable strategy (for all levels - we're not just talking end game). Especially on blue server where years of mudflation allow gear that far exceeds what a player could reasonably collect in 2 years on live.

Besides rebalancing channeling and maybe implementing network/fps throttles, the biggest fix needed for the charm classes is a reintroduction of the early release pathing/ai bugs. Pets are just too reliable/predictable in vanilla/kunark.

[Jimjam]

I've found a post on groups.google.com for alt.games.everquest, Dec 8, 1999, responding to a Brad statement.

I've not yet found the original Brad statement, but I can see that around this date Brad reported an improvement to pet pathing. Interestingly was also about the same time the Charm spell was removed from shamans. For the next iteration of Green, we surely need much nerfed pet AI for the server opening.

Thread was called "The NERF List concerning Shamans"

I found another thread, Brad's Latest PR - Comments? (Long Post), Dec 7, 1999 quoting in full the aforementioned Brad post. Some interesting stuff there (such as the purchased potions not being in game from day 1, and shaman/enchanter pets at 39+ were in a more powerful form at release!). I'm sure lots of timeline / bug stuff can be mined from this! I've copy pasted their copypaste post below:
The following is a copy of a post by Brad. Just something I noticed, but
there seems to be a slight lack of minuses (I.E. Levitate Nerf from the
latest patch). I won't comment further because I have in a couple of other
posts, but I would like to see other comments on the plusses and minuses
listed by Brad.

START QUOTE
I and the rest of the 'nerfing team' put the following document together
listing both enhancements and 'nerfs' we've made to the game since launch.
And while we probably forgot some things, both negative and positive (please
let us know and I'll update the document), I think it puts in perspective
the ratio of positive vs. negative changes to the game we've made. I also
feel it heartily invalidates the assertion that we are out to make the game
harder or to have players advance slower overall, or that 'all we do is
nerf'.
The following is broken down by class, and then addresses those changes made
that affect the whole game. Changes we feel are positive from just about any
perspective are denoted with a '+', and those some players might consider a
'nerf', but that we felt were important for the long term health of the
game, are denoted with a '-'.

(again, I'm sure we've forgotten some things, both '+' and '-'; please feel
free to comment and add items).

WIZARDS:


+ Added additional means by which to obtain Ice Comet
+ Made Researching much easier
+ Added more high level spells
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Enhanced AoE Spells to let Wizard effect more creatures
+ Added Plane Travel Spells
+ Enhanced Specific Wizard Stun Spells
+ Added AoE slow monster spell (c.f. Bonds of Force)
RANGERS:


+ Introduction of better average armor that is easier than most to get +
Critical Bow hits
+ Many new quests requiring a tracker to find outdoor spawn
+ Made Ebony Blade group friendly
+ More variety of items obtained via the Forage skill
+ Increased defensive skill caps (parry, dodge)
+ Added innate resistance to fire and cold
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Added additional Ranger Spells
+ Changed Some Spell Casting Skills to allow easier Skilling (c.f. Dance of
the Fireflies)
DRUIDS:

- DOTs changed negatively, making Kiting less efficient
+ DoT changed positively to enhance group play
+ Many new quests requiring a tracker to find outdoor spawn
+ Increased druid's tracking ability
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Enhanced Pet/Charmed Animal Pathing
+ Enhanced Some Druid Anti-Movement Spells (c.f. Ensnare, Grasping Roots,
etc.)
+ Lowered the Casting Level of Some Druid Teleport Spells

PALADINS:

+ Added Archery
+ Added innate resistance to disease
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Increased stats of Armor of Ro items

SHADOWKNIGHTS:

+ Spell changes (added lifetap)
+ Made Harm Touch less resistible
+ Added innate resistance to poison and disease
- DOTs changed negatively, making Kiting less efficient
+ DoT changed positively to enhance group play
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+/- Feign Death Changes - Better for Low Level Character, Better for High
Level once learning curve has passed
+ Made Certain Spells Harder to Resist (c.f. Invoke Fear)
+ Changes to Pet Appearances

CLERICS:

+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
- Resurrect Changes (Players come back sick)
+ Made Certain Spells Harder to Resist (c.f. Invoke Fear)
+ Reduced the Casting Time of Some Spells (c.f. Word of Healing/Health, Ward
Series)

MONKS:

+/- Feign Death Changes - Better for Low Level Character, Better for High
Level once learning curve has passed
+ New tailoring armor
+ Added items that boost stats, etc.
+ Added innate resistance to fire
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items

NECROS:

- LifeTap/Dots changed
+ Some Lifetap Spells Made more mana efficient
- High Level (39+) Pets weakened
+ DOTs made more efficient
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Necromancer Pet Buff Spells Strengthened
+ Added Special Items to let Necromancers Summon Stronger Pets
+ Corrected Bug that let monsters attack you from far distances through your
pet
+ Lots of New Spells (c.f. Screaming Terror, Pact of Shadow, Vampiric Curse,
Bond of Death, Summon Corpse, etc.)
+ Enhanced Call of Bones Series
+ Enhanced Screaming Terror
- Added a Recast Time to Pact of Shadow
+ Made Certain Spells Harder to Resist (c.f. Invoke Fear)
+ Added New Looks to Necromancer Pets
- Removed Charm
+ Enhanced Pet Pathing
+ Reduced the Casting Time of Some Necromancer Spells
+ Made Research Easier & Fixed Broken Research
+ Added Quests to let Necromancers Quest (instead of Research) their pets +
Enhanced Effectiveness of Some Spells (Shadow Vortex, Surge of Enfeeblement,
Ignite Bones, Dead Man Floating, etc.)

Magicians:

+ New summon item spells
- High Level (39+) Pets weakened
+ Better mid+ level pets (they cast spells now)
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Magician Pet Buff Spells Strengthened
+ Enhanced Pet Pathing
+ Added Special Items to let Magicians Summon Stronger Pets
+ Corrected Bug that let monsters attack you from far distances through your
pet
+ Made Magician Research Easier - especially for their pets
+ Added Spell Effects to most Magician Summoned Items
+ Enhanced AoE Spells to let Magicians effect more creatures
+ Reduced Mana Cost of Damage Shields
+ Reduced Casting Time of Ward Series
+ Made the Malise Series Stack Better
+ Made the Burnout Series Better

BARDS:

+ Added stat and other bonuses to instruments
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Corrected Bug that let monsters attack you from far distances through your
pet
+ Added Addition Effects to Some Bard Songs
+ Added New Bard Songs
+ Added Ability for Bards to Punch 'Magic Only' Creatures
+ Increased the Power of Some Bard Songs (c.f. Chant Series, Fifil's, etc.)

WARRIORS:

+ Added critical melee hits
+ Later increased chance of critical hits
+ More Hit Points
+ Innate Magical Resistance
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Added Berserking

ROGUES:

+ Added Poison skill
+ Thrown Weapon Critical Hits
+ Minimum Backstab Damage Implemented
+ Minimum Backstab Damage Later Upped
+ Hide/Sneak Enhanced
+ Added innate resistance to poison
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Improvements to Poison Skill

ENCHANTERS:

+ Jewelry Trade
- High Level (39+) Pets weakened
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Made Tishan stack better and removed recasting time
+ Corrected Bug that let monsters attack you from far distances through your
pet
+ Made Certain Spells Harder to Resist (c.f. Invoke Fear)
+ Increased Durations of All Illusions
+ Made Research Easier
- Made Illusion Wolf OD Only
+ Added Mana Enchant Spells to Allow Item Enchantment
+ Made Enchanter Pets Look Different
+ Enhanced Certain Spells (curse of the simple mind, etc.
+ Added More Effects to High Level Illusion Spells
+ Better Pet Pathing

SHAMAN:

+ Added Shrink Spell
- Took too long to recognize Alchemy bug
- High Level (39+) Pets weakened
+ Added more Class Specific Quests
+ Added more Class Specific Items
+ Enhanced High Level (35+) Meditation
+ Made Malise stack better and removed recasting time
+ Better Pet Pathing
- DOTs changed negatively, making Kiting less efficient
+ DoT changed positively to enhance group play
+ DoT's Made Stronger
+ Corrected Bug that let monsters attack you from far distances through your
pet
- Removed Charm Spell
+ Increased the Duration of Buffs

ALL MELEE:

+ Purchasable Potions added, giving more versatility to melee
classes and adding a money sink to the game to help the economy

ALL CASTERS:


- Removal of Manastone
+ Made it such that you can see meditating (levels 35+)
+ Implemented Specialization
ALL:


+ HALVED experience loss death penalty
- Removal of weightless box spawn
+ Purchasable weightless box added
- Introduction of Frenzy code (after level 19)
+ New emotes and animations
+ New graphics for weapons
+ Populated Plane of Fear
+ Populated Plane of Hate
+ Populated Kedge Keep
+ Populated and added Temple of Solusek Ro
+ Increased range for evac and teleport spells
+ Added second boat between Freeport and Butcherblock
+ Added class specific quests for many classes
+ Increased treasure and experience gain rewards for many older quests -
Upgraded NPC AI such that if an NPC is stuck it can teleport around obstacle
+ Added /follow command
+ Added adjustable clipping plane
+ Added /yell command
+ Added /friends list
+ Increased frequency and complexity of dynamic quests and events
+ Added ability to rearrange spells in spellbook
+ Added additional chat filters
This is the follow up post by Brad from the Official EQ Message Board:

Thanks for all of the responses -- I will compile the valid pluses and
minuses listed in this thread today and have a revised version of the list
by the end of the day. A few items I'd like to address right now:
1. Lay on Hands has ALWAYS had an extremely unlikely chance of fizzling.
There was no change to this.

2. We've made no sweeping across the board increase to fizzling.

3. Meditation time was never increased (it was decreased at least once in
beta, though).

Also, there were a few items posted that from the perspective of the
document are not valid. For example, '(Shadow Knights) - Increased mana cost
for lifetap line of spells.' SKs didn't have that line of spell, and we gave
it to them, but with an increased mana cost relative to necros. This is NOT
a nerf. You may have prefered that the spells were identical to the necro
line, but the fact is you didn't have the line previously, and so this was
an addition. Debating the merit of an addition is not what this list is
about, rather it is to document in general what we've added and taken away
since launch.

-Brad
END QUOTE

[Toxigen]

im sure the devs will change everything when this hits 50 pages

[Jimjam]

Sorry for multi post.

I know we are discounting anecdotes, so this link (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.everquest/c/I3585WhZr3s/m/JaGKQPYXLxcJ) isn't really relevant to the thread as it doesn't include thousands of lines of parses, but it does have some perspectives on enchanter cc / soloing / breaking camps early on in vanilla. If we will accept this kind of evidence, we must ensure not to let the pendulum swing too far.

[cd288]

The Brad quote was really cool. Interesting stuff. I wish it was more specific though so it could tell us whether something is accurate on P99 (ex. Where it says something is strengthened or weakened, to what extent?).

[DMN]

There were two pet nerfs, but shaman pets only got hit by one of them(lower damage per hit-- all pet classes had this happen to them, the mage/necro pets got the iggest nerf), and were only marginally impacted. Enc got hit by both but only marginally impacted by one but hugely impacted by the other (normalized attack speeds). Ench my actually have been the worse hit by the nerf long term, not for their garbage animations, but the normalized attack speeds would lower the potential mana free DPS increases of their charms by around 50%. Ghoul Bok Knight even with the crappy necro haste + FS weapons at the time could 1 v1 ghoul lord and win 9 out of 10 times.

[bubur]

waiting for the discovery that charm didn't even exist on release

[azxten]

Sorry for multi post.

I know we are discounting anecdotes, so this link (https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.everquest/c/I3585WhZr3s/m/JaGKQPYXLxcJ) isn't really relevant to the thread as it doesn't include thousands of lines of parses, but it does have some perspectives on enchanter cc / soloing / breaking camps early on in vanilla. If we will accept this kind of evidence, we must ensure not to let the pendulum swing too far.

I like where he says a broken pet attacking him might not be able to be controlled for the full mez duration on another mob resulting in death. What? I thought Enchanters were totally fine if charm breaks. They just stun and so on. In 24 seconds this guy still can't land a spell to save him from his pet?

Channeling needs a massive nerf or devs aren't trying to recreate classic. Oh and obviously this will shit all over Enchanters trying to solo charm dungeons no matter what they say.

I like the mention of adding warrior crits. Another thing I said wasn't classic that people said I was lying about. That post shows all kinds of shit missing or wrong on P99.

More proof pet AI and pathing was terrible.

Charm removed from Necro too?

Fix channeling. Make charm break in less then 30 to make up for the GIGANTIC list of bugs it had that P99 is covering up.

[bubur]

I'll consider it if u stop yelling at me

[azxten]

I'll consider it if u stop yelling at me

I only use the internet to yell at people sorry

[cd288]

I like where he says a broken pet attacking him might not be able to be controlled for the full mez duration on another mob resulting in death. What? I thought Enchanters were totally fine if charm breaks. They just stun and so on. In 24 seconds this guy still can't land a spell to save him from his pet?

Channeling needs a massive nerf or devs aren't trying to recreate classic. Oh and obviously this will shit all over Enchanters trying to solo charm dungeons no matter what they say.

I like the mention of adding warrior crits. Another thing I said wasn't classic that people said I was lying about. That post shows all kinds of shit missing or wrong on P99.

More proof pet AI and pathing was terrible.

Charm removed from Necro too?

Fix channeling. Make charm break in less then 30 to make up for the GIGANTIC list of bugs it had that P99 is covering up.

I believe they’ve already said that channeling isn’t fixable I believe because of something to do with the client or something like that.

But why are you posting this here? If you’re so confident in your evidence why don’t you go post it in the bug forums

[DMN]

I like where he says a broken pet attacking him might not be able to be controlled for the full mez duration on another mob resulting in death. What? I thought Enchanters were totally fine if charm breaks. They just stun and so on. In 24 seconds this guy still can't land a spell to save him from his pet?

Speaking of classic, this seems pretty "classic asston". He latches on to some minor detail, draws some bullshit conclusion from it, yet is completely ignorant of everything important surrounding that detail -- or perhaps I should say he pretends to be ignorant. What he was saying is that if charm breaks at a certain time, it may prevent him from being able to refresh mesmerization(aoe mez) towards the end of its duration, allowing several mobs to break free of mez. Nothing more and nothing less. Yet strangely, in asston's bizzaro world, this guy who apparently can't recharm a mob for 24 seconds STILL DECIDES TO USE THAT SPELL. Is he suicidal or is asston just a moron? We will let the(unfortunate) readers decide.




Charm removed from Necro too?

Gee, imagine that, asston. It must have been such a horrible spell they decided to simply delete from necro spellbooks to save them the plat for buying the spell. Or perhaps it wasn't as shitty of a spell your dumb ass thinks? Hrmmmmmmm.

[azxten]

Speaking of classic, this seems pretty "classic asston". He latches on to some minor detail, draws some bullshit conclusion from it, yet is completely ignorant of everything important surrounding that detail -- or perhaps I should say he pretends to be ignorant. What he was saying is that if charm breaks at a certain time, it may prevent him from being able to refresh mesmerization(aoe mez) towards the end of its duration, allowing several mobs to break free of mez. Nothing more and nothing less. Yet strangely, in asston's bizzaro world, this guy who apparently can't recharm a mob for 24 seconds STILL DECIDES TO USE THAT SPELL. Is he suicidal or is asston just a moron? We will let the(unfortunate) readers decide.




Gee, imagine that, asston. It must have been such a horrible spell they decided to simply delete from necro spellbooks to save them the plat for buying the spell. Or perhaps it wasn't as shitty of a spell your dumb ass thinks? Hrmmmmmmm.

Here's this dumb fucking baby again, holy shit. You're so far up my fucking ass the least you could do is give me a reach around. I'm here enjoying all this proof that everything I say is correct and you have to come shit up my thread still with your retarded insults and little baby name calling. Every post you make you're just more off topic than the last.

Why we just put some actual quotes out there?

My favorite way to break a big spawn of blues is to take a tank, cast
Feedback (a damage shield) on him, tell him to run into the middle to
get them all mad at him, then center a Mesmerization on him. Repeat
as needed until they all fall asleep. Then we fight the monsters one
at a time, retreating to heal if necessary. The damage from the
Feedback keeps the monsters mad at him instead of me, so I am free to
cast. Don't try this with whites and up. Too many will resist and
they chew up the tank too fast.

If we need more firepower, I charm one of them, but that is very
unreliable and dangerous. A pet gone wild can easily prevent me from
casting for the duration of a Mesmerization (24 seconds), allowing the
whole horde to wake up and kill us all. That's if it doesn't just
kill me outright.

Once again, stop derailing the thread with easily proven lies, this person clearly states a pet break can prevent casting for the DURATION of a Mesmerization, they even specify the seconds, and then they even mention at the end that is if the pet doesn't kill them before the mez breaks. Not only that but they even say charm is "VERY UNRELIABLE AND DANGEROUS". Oh my gosh!

On top of that the guy is fucking talking about duoing with a tank and not even using charm and you're trying to make it sound like he "STILL DECIDES TO USE THAT SPELL." Yeah no shit you dumb fucking retard and he clarifies it is extremely risky to use. Absolutely nothing like P99 where charming is a piece of fucking cake and entails basically zero risk as you yourself confirm over and over by saying nerfing channeling still wouldn't be enough to slow down the easy OP Enchanter class you no skilled retarded fucking morons love so much.

YOU ARE CONFIRMED TO BE A DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT, STOP POSTING IN MY THREAD, NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE

You're too fucking stupid to even look at the other posts on that page like the one saying someone knows an Enchanter who can break Lord camp. Everyone is pumped on fine steel buffed animation pets and literally no mention of charm is found except that it is risky as fuck. Maybe if you actually cared to find the answer you would have read it for yourself instead of grabbing my cock again the second I post and making up a bunch of bullshit.

Does your Mom know you're posting here? I'm going to tell her.

P.S. Even though it's well past your bed time and your Mom and I have been waiting patiently for you to go to sleep I'm going to read you one last bedtime story little baby.

Enchanter pets, much like shaman pets, are MUCH weaker than
mage/necro pets... enchanter pets are REALLY weak, actually.

Go to bed now sweaty.

[Jibartik]

dumb fucking baby holy shit. my fucking ass everything I say is correct you shit up retarded insults little baby name calling. Oh my gosh! fucking talking yea no shit you dumb fucking retard charming is a piece of fucking cake you no skilled retarded fucking morons.

YOU ARE CONFIRMED TO BE A DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE

You're too fucking stupid fuck. grabbing my cock again a bunch of bullshit.

Does your Mom know you're posting past your bed time your Mom go to sleep little baby.

Go to bed now sweaty.

lol I deleted like 5 words.

[ClephNote]

We should let this guy make decisions.

[Izmael]

@azxten, you need to learn the art of brevity.

Nobody wades through your waterfalls of bullshit.

[Vivitron]

false... lol ive repeatedly said post kunark chanter is fine as is other than lower lvl channeling

Make charm break in less then 30 to make up for the GIGANTIC list of bugs it had that P99 is covering up.

So are you asking to nerf charm break rate, but only during pre-kunark eras?

I'll also reiterate that I experienced a significant portion of your list of purported charm bugs on p99, because that portion of them is user error and confusion rather than bugs.
You're too fucking stupid to even look at the other posts on that page like the one saying someone knows an Enchanter who can break Lord camp. Everyone is pumped on fine steel buffed animation pets and literally no mention of charm is found except that it is risky as fuck.
Enchanter pets, much like shaman pets, are MUCH weaker than
mage/necro pets... enchanter pets are REALLY weak, actually.

Are you trying to say his acquaintance was breaking lord with his animation, or the thread is evidence that animations were super weak on live, both?

I wonder if the low delay weapon trick made charm less appealing. If you used it on charm pets then charming would be more dangerous and if you didn't then charm pets would do less damage relative to summoned pets.