Charm mechanic changes next patch?

[Smeeter]

Hello everyone!

I have heard rumors of charm mechanics for chanters will be changed next patch. I have searched around and cannot find anything about this. Maybe I fail at my search skills.

Here is what I have heard. CHA will only be checked on the first initial charm. All checks after the mob is charmed will be MR of the mob only. No CHA will come into play AFTER the mob is charmed.

Now this is hearsay and I have no clue if this is true. Does anyone have any links or info on this?

If this is the case will this be a nerf? Will the days of stacking CHA be over? Will enchanters be required to carry a full set of -MR gear? Are the glory days of enchanters over?


Any thoughts?

[realsubtle]

It was my understanding that this is how things have always worked?

[starkind]

enchanters already do all that it won't be a huge nerf it may make it a little more risky to solo in the planes and stuff or any mob that has an actual mr buff to itself (very few)

u will probably still be able to solo frenzy, magus, lord

[Valik1016]

I thought that CHA has an effect on initial charming only, and the mob's MR has an effect has an effect to possibly resist the initial charm only, and for each tick after the charm lands there is a random chance of charm breaking, independent of the enchanter's CHA or the mob's MR. I have played chanters with maxed out CHA, and I always found that it helps charm land, but how long it lasts varies from 6 sec to several minutes. That variation was the same if my CHA was 80 or 255. The advantage of the 255 was how easy it was to recharm quickly after a charm break. But believe me, it doesn't turn your charm into dire charm.

[widowblade]

This is all my own opinion and not based on anything other than my speculation.

If it functions as they say it will, (don't have the link on hand) it will allegedly function the same as necromancer and druid charm, which are not reliant on charisma at all. If anything I see this as a buff to enchanters as druid and necro charms are quite reliable, especially with tash. You would essentially be able to dip below cha cap and have no penalty with a charmed pet (i.e swapping out a zlandi heart for regen or stacking more HP gear).

A solo enchanter would still want max CHA at level 60 for calming and such; personally I wouldn't change much about gear with this "change".

tl;dr I don't think it will change much, if anything it will buff enchanters.

[Smeeter]

This is all my own opinion and not based on anything other than my speculation.

If it functions as they say it will, (don't have the link on hand) it will allegedly function the same as necromancer and druid charm, which are not reliant on charisma at all. If anything I see this as a buff to enchanters as druid and necro charms are quite reliable, especially with tash. You would essentially be able to dip below cha cap and have no penalty with a charmed pet (i.e swapping out a zlandi heart for regen or stacking more HP gear).

A solo enchanter would still want max CHA at level 60 for calming and such; personally I wouldn't change much about gear with this "change".

tl;dr I don't think it will change much, if anything it will buff enchanters.

Hmmmm. My main is a 60 druid and I do quite a bit of charming in SG, Kedge and now learning PoM. If this will change chanter charm to work the same as druid and necro then thats not too bad at all. With druid tash on low level 50ish mobs my charms stick pretty well. My chanter is only level 53 but I feel like my druid charms while leveling my druid were more reliable than my chanter who has max CHA. Enchanters are also able to give pets -MR gear so that helps even more.

Im curious to see if this is a small nerf or small buff or maybe not change much at all. Thanks for the feed back. I really wish I had a link on where or who this info came from.

[widowblade]

Hmmmm. My main is a 60 druid and I do quite a bit of charming in SG, Kedge and now learning PoM. If this will change chanter charm to work the same as druid and necro then thats not too bad at all. With druid tash on low level 50ish mobs my charms stick pretty well. My chanter is only level 53 but I feel like my druid charms while leveling my druid were more reliable than my chanter who has max CHA. Enchanters are also able to give pets -MR gear so that helps even more.

Im curious to see if this is a small nerf or small buff or maybe not change much at all. Thanks for the feed back. I really wish I had a link on where or who this info came from.

Found it. This was what was linked to me: http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?p=266999

[Smeeter]

It was my understanding that this is how things have always worked?
For druid and necro(I guess even shaman) charms yes this is how it works. For chanter charms from what I understand it takes CHA into account and the MR of the mob into account. So the higher the CHA the less chance to get a break. Now I could be totally wrong on this. Its how it was explained to me.

[Smeeter]

Found it. This was what was linked to me: http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?p=266999

Very nice!! A lot to digest there. Thanks for the awesome find!

[widowblade]

Very nice!! A lot to digest there. Thanks for the awesome find!

No problem :) Happy to help

[bilirubin]

Are the glory days of enchanters over?


It seems so. There are p99-era web captures of devs explaining explicitly that charisma does in fact affect charm duration. Alas, some EQdev has inferred from PoP-era data that CHA does not. Of course, this may be true about PoP-era charm but that doesn't necessarily apply to the era p99 devs are interested in emulating. I don't buy the idea that the original devs misunderstood how charm worked. There's a recent interview on YT with Geoffrey Zatkin, EQ's original spell designer, where he goes into detail how Brad, himself, and the other devs would frequently meet and discuss the minutia of EQ's mechanics for hours and hours. You don't get the sense that Zatkin would misconstrue how this essential spell worked.

[everquestfun]

Logged into HS and my level 57 enchanter got Rekd by entrance mobs. All charms and roots broke very quick. I continued to work the entrance mobs and root and charm broke very quickly.

[derpcake2]

Im curious to see if this is a small nerf or small buff or maybe not change much at all. Thanks for the feed back. I really wish I had a link on where or who this info came from.

The exact impact this has is documented in another thread.

It is going to be extremely bad for enchanters charming mobs around their level, for a lvl 60 enchanter charming a lvl 52ish mob it means around +35 MR for the mob.

Anyone that wants to test the impact this has can just take of their CHA gear, or if level 60, try charming a 52ish mob without tash.

The impact for a level 60 chanter charming a lvl 45ish or lower mob is close to zero, since the level difference and tash already bring those level mobs to the lowest MR possible they can have for the purpose of the charm break check.

This will mostly impact level 40-55 enchanters, since those typically charm mobs closer to their own level, level 60s charming higher level mobs, and of course every group with either of those.

[loramin]

The exact impact this has is documented in another thread.

It is going to be extremely bad for enchanters charming mobs around their level, for a lvl 60 enchanter charming a lvl 52ish mob it means around +35 MR for the mob.

Anyone that wants to test the impact this has can just take of their CHA gear, or if level 60, try charming a 52ish mob without tash.

The impact for a level 60 chanter charming a lvl 45ish or lower mob is close to zero, since the level difference and tash already bring those level mobs to the lowest MR possible they can have for the purpose of the charm break check.

This will mostly impact level 40-55 enchanters, since those typically charm mobs closer to their own level, level 60s charming higher level mobs, and of course every group with either of those.

Sounds a whole lot more like classic to me :D

[derpcake2]

Sounds a whole lot more like classic to me :D

You aren't here for classic, you are just trying to ruin other classes with your incessant moaning and lies.

It isn't subtle, it isn't smart.

You being happy about other classes being nerfed says a lot about you as a person.

I'll make sure to post a compilation of quotes from you on the topic, so every enchanter knows how this came to be and who to thank.

[Arvan]

You aren't here for classic, you are just trying to ruin other classes with your incessant moaning and lies.

It isn't subtle, it isn't smart.

You being happy about other classes being nerfed says a lot about you as a person.

I'll make sure to post a compilation of quotes from you on the topic, so every enchanter knows how this came to be and who to thank.

Dang that some high quality salt

[Stonewallx39]

You aren't here for classic, you are just trying to ruin other classes with your incessant moaning and lies.

It isn't subtle, it isn't smart.

Yowza!

While I super appreciate Loramin on the positive contribution he has made to the wiki I disagree with his perspective on this issue. Chanter charm works as it did in classic, we’re just magnitudes better informed than we were at that time.

There were zero enchanters who knew to tash, max their charisma, choose low MR mobs, and give their pets -mr items all at the same time. Sure we knew some pieces at various points, but couldn’t see the full picture. We didn’t even know about all of the +cha items we do today much less religiously keep up self buffs for charisma.

[branamil]

This server isn't any closer to classic than other EMUs. Not sure why that's still the goal when they've deviated so far from it.

[derpcake2]

Yowza!

While I super appreciate Loramin on the positive contribution he has made to the wiki I disagree with his perspective on this issue. Chanter charm works as it did in classic, we’re just magnitudes better informed than we were at that time.

There were zero enchanters who knew to tash, max their charisma, choose low MR mobs, and give their pets -mr items all at the same time. Sure we knew some pieces at various points, but couldn’t see the full picture. We didn’t even know about all of the +cha items we do today much less religiously keep up self buffs for charisma.

There is no certainty about how it worked back then.

Why would they put in precious dev time to change something while not certain?

See Loramins dozens if not hundreds of "subtle" posts asking for it.

pro tip: it isn't because someone adds a smiley to their posts, or writes lies in a positive tone, that they are a trustworthy person

[Jimjam]

I’m amazed by all these people apparently with access to the trilogy, eqemu and p1999 source codes who are as such able to make definitive statements on how hidden classic mechanics worked and whether p1999 is moving closer or further from that.

[derpcake2]

I’m amazed by all these people apparently with access to the trilogy, eqemu and p1999 source codes who are as such able to make definitive statements on how hidden classic mechanics worked and whether p1999 is moving closer or further from that.

If you had kept track of the discussion, you'd know everyone involved admitted "we aren't certain how it worked".

Despite that, mechanics get changed based on "feels" based posts, and extensive whining.

As long as people complain long enough in a positive tone and throw in some smileys, they'll succeed at getting things nerfed despite lack of evidence.

Hope this helps clear your confusion.

[Jimjam]

What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?

[derpcake2]

What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?

What is the majority of p1999 based on?

Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?

[Jimjam]

What is the majority of p1999 based on?

A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.

Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?

Firsthand experience ("Feelz") is very flawed evidence, but as Lionel Hutz pathetically expresses "Conjecture and hearsay are kinds of evidence". If there is not enough hard evidence to swing an argument either way, but one side can make a more convincing 'feelz' argument and a dev is willing to try out that suggestion then I think that is fair. If the suggestion ends up feeling further from classic then make the 'factless' argument and revert.

[derpcake2]

A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.

So do you think things should be changed based on many posts by a few?

We can disagree on that. I don't see what point you are trying to make if not that.

[Jimjam]

So do you think things should be changed based on many posts by a few?

We can disagree on that. I don't see what point you are trying to make if not that.

IDK, some people were posting earlier as if they had definitive knowledge of how the back end mechanics worked during trilogy.

I guess we'll see how the emergent game play is after the change has settled and see whether or not it feels more classic.

[derpcake2]

IDK, some people were posting earlier as if they had definitive knowledge of how the back end mechanics worked during trilogy.

I guess we'll see how the emergent game play is after the change has settled and see whether or not it feels more classic.

There isn't going to be "emergent gameplay", there will just be nerfed enchanters.

Of course you know that.

[Jimjam]

It would be a little sad if the meta remains exactly the same, just with worse luck on breaks. If that is the case, and it feels less classic, then I suppose a revert would be in order.

[derpcake2]

It would be a little sad if the meta remains exactly the same, just with worse luck on breaks. If that is the case, and it feels less classic, then I suppose a revert would be in order.

Reverts don't happen, you also know that.

[Jimjam]

Reverts don't happen, you also know that.

You’ve been asking me what I think, so I’ve been replying with what I think should happen. Sorry I’m not in charge?

As reverts generally don’t happen I suppose the dev team only implements changes they feel are a step closer to classic and the arguments, even if they lacked what you might consider hard evidence, were persuasive enough to make the decision to change.

[derpcake2]

You’ve been asking me what I think, so I’ve been replying with what I think should happen. Sorry I’m not in charge?

As reverts generally don’t happen I suppose the dev team only implements changes they feel are a step closer to classic and the arguments, even if they lacked what you might consider hard evidence, were persuasive enough to make the decision to change.

No you are saying "if its wrong they can revert it".

Which is bullshit, since reverts don't happen, which you admit.

Let me add a smiley and hope this info helps :)

You (poorly) evaded every question and it is tiresome. Try taking lessons from Loramin, I know you are buddies.

[Jimjam]

Perhaps you would like to go back over your questions and try repeating them rephrased as I don’t seem to have answered them in the way you were hoping - maybe I’ve misunderstood?

[derpcake2]

Perhaps you would like to go back over your questions and try repeating them rephrased as I don’t seem to have answered them in the way you were hoping - maybe I’ve misunderstood?

Thank you but no :)

If I wanted to spend hundreds of hours arguing with people in bad faith, I'd have taken it up with Loramin earlier.

[Jimjam]

Thank you but no :)

If I wanted to spend hundreds of hours arguing with people in bad faith, I'd have taken it up with Loramin earlier.

My apologies. I thought we were having a discussion to explore each others thoughts, I didn’t realise you were trying to argue with me in bad faith. Sorry.

I’ll try to prepare some bad faith arguments for next time. I’ll keep them punchy so you won’t need to spend hundreds of hours at it!

[derpcake2]

My apologies. I thought we were having a discussion to explore each others thoughts, I didn’t realise you were trying to argue with me in bad faith. Sorry.

I’ll try to prepare some bad faith arguments for next time. I’ll keep them punchy so you won’t need to spend hundreds of hours at it!

I phrased it like that since you'd take that bait.

You understood perfectly well what I said, and are supporting what I meant with the quoted post :)

[Jimjam]

Thanks for anticipating and appreciating my good humour!

I’m not really sure what your point to me was - i mist compliment you on this: you’re opaque and manipulative (though funny!) - a perfect enchanter - but that makes it difficult for me to understand what you’re trying to communicate with your posts. Maybe you aren’t trying to communicate, more achieve something? Either way, I’m not very good at political games.

I feel like we’ve been lead on a bit of a wild goose chase. So i’ll just back track. There is no reason to treat much on p1999 as sacrosanct: the server it is largely ‘fake’ (as in it isn’t the original product). That said, I’d rather have fake that feels classic.

Remember when AC got overhauled from one unclassic implementation to another? It’s still verifiably unclassic, but at least it feels closer to classic. I can’t remember if it was a nerf or not, but I hope this charm change goes the same way - if all the ‘charm is broken’ threads stop like the ‘ac is broken’ threads stopped that would be a boon.

[loramin]

You aren't here for classic, you are just trying to ruin other classes with your incessant moaning and lies.

It isn't subtle, it isn't smart.

You being happy about other classes being nerfed says a lot about you as a person.

I'll make sure to post a compilation of quotes from you on the topic, so every enchanter knows how this came to be and who to thank.

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341727).

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest :)

[Bondrake]

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341727).

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest :)

How dare you destroy my favorite class. You fat ugly neckbeard.

[Jimjam]

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341727).

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest :)

Amazing! So many people been arguing Enchanter charm felt wrong (or right), but Dolalin dod the impossible found good evidence beyond just witness statements.

Do you think no change would have been made if not for this research? I wonder how many other things are an unclassic implementation, kept in the project out of inertia because it is the first attempted best guess.

[derpcake2]

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341727).

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest :)

From the person that posted this "proof", 2nd paragraph from your link:

"And each test includes a total of 25 charms. Yes, I know this is WAY too low to have a completely accurate result set, but damn, I can only sit it one place for so long charming the same mob"

Even in 2001 that guy knew this is very low value at best.

Also there is absolutely zero data on mobs >50.

Of course you already knew that. :) You are just pretending to be stupid so you can gloat about this :)

[derpcake2]

Amazing! So many people been arguing Enchanter charm felt wrong (or right), but Dolalin dod the impossible found good evidence beyond just witness statements.

Never happened :)

[Chortles Snortles]

whoa guys chill and read my wiki
(LOL)

[starkind]

Enchanters are all about removing consent.

Rip ur brains.

https://i.imgur.com/0orxjUN.jpeg

[Stonewallx39]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

[starkind]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

the real irony is both increased MR resists and charisma check only applying on first cast or check are probably true and u can play 3 characters on takp if this game is too hard for u

also considering channeling - it's being looked into seriously by dedicated curators

P99 is really great.

It is really great at what p99 does.

The spirit and soul of classic matters too, and the feel does aswell. I'm glad Nilbog sticks to his guns and demands serious evidence. It means changes like this are more likely to stick. Still, I wish I could run my classic feeling custom box. It wouldn't be p99 though.

[Tunabros]

person who doesn;t play p99 comes in to talk about charming

lol!

[loramin]

From the person that posted this "proof", 2nd paragraph from your link:

"And each test includes a total of 25 charms. Yes, I know this is WAY too low to have a completely accurate result set, but damn, I can only sit it one place for so long charming the same mob"

Even in 2001 that guy knew this is very low value at best.

Also there is absolutely zero data on mobs >50.

Of course you already knew that. :) You are just pretending to be stupid so you can gloat about this :)

So wait, let me get this straight: you have zero data or evidence of your own to submit. You have nothing to back your position up, except your desire to keep P99 enchanters fun for you personally ... but you're certain that Enchanters here are accurate, and played just like this in '99-'01?

Furthermore you are so eager to prove that (100% unfounded) belief that you're willing to attack and tear down the excellent work another researcher volunteered their time to find ... while completely ignoring the fact that all classic research is similarly crappy old posts like that one? And again, you're doing this attacking while not even trying to do a fraction of what Dolalin did (ie. find even the tiniest bit of evidence to support your point)?

Do I have that correct? Or is it simpler than that: maybe just that you have no respect for what this place is about?

Because I'm truly starting to think you don't care if Enchanters (or anything else here) is classic: you'll just make any argument you can (ie. throw as much spaghetti as you can at the wall) in the hope that something sticks, so you can keep playing your class the (unclassic) way you like.

But if you've enjoyed this place even a fraction as much as I have, I think that's a disrespectful position to take: the one and only thing our benevolent overlords here have asked for, in exchange for limitless free gameplay, is help making things more classic.

[Pringles]

Hello everyone!

I have heard rumors of charm mechanics for chanters will be changed next patch. I have searched around and cannot find anything about this. Maybe I fail at my search skills.



Any thoughts?

If haynar wants to port the code for next patch, then yeah that's how it will be.

Maximum chaos would be going with Torven's speculation on the first resist system and changing resists across the board to live's pvp formula.

[Lich]

It's classic enough to still be fun but it's approaching meh status. We have played for years with stuff slowly getting "fixed" but it's becoming more about nerfing xyz than making it classic. I have one or more of each class that I'm leveling up and I don't want to see any more nerfs. I spent weeks in KC when Kunark came out and good enchanters would charm while grouped and it was awesome. I always wanted an enchanter in the group. Yet some of you clowns are saying that enchanters didn't charm during that era. I lived it and the ones in the know certainly kicked ass.

[Deadfather]

Enchanter charm has been nerfed with last patch so ?

[derpcake2]

Furthermore you are so eager to prove that (100% unfounded) belief that you're willing to attack and tear down the excellent work another researcher volunteered their time to find ... while completely ignoring the fact that all classic research is similarly crappy old posts like that one? And again, you're doing this attacking while not even trying to do a fraction of what Dolalin did (ie. find even the tiniest bit of evidence to support your point)?


As I pointed out a few posts ago, the information which is described as "excellent work", contains a statement from the poster acknowledging that said information is at best "lacking" due to a small sample size.

You conveniently ignored this, of course.

I understand disinformation and acting stupid are parts of your forum persona, so if I need to requote that a few times more lmk.

Always glad to help :)

[derpcake2]

If you read Dolalins research it’s extremely weak. It’s not even remotely close to statistically significant or comparing like variables. The classic era (supposedly couldn’t personally verify) test had a small sample size and didn’t control for the effects of magic resistance debuffs. The test was 25 samples, and found a weak negative correlation between charisma and charm duration, where less charisma slightly improved charm duration.

I’d argue (and gosh darn it I’m a guy in the internet!) that magic resist/small level differentiation caused most of the volatility seen in the test results and as a result of a very high standard deviation the 25 sample size is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

He did test magic resistance later, and found it was strongly correlated with charm duration.

The sample size is also extremely limited when it comes to mob level ranges.

There is no way to extrapolate this data, it simply is lacking.

The only possible outcome is making changes based on what it "feels" like, which p1999 never used to be about.

@loramin perhaps you and your buddies can elaborate on how the available data can be extrapolated into a model that covers caster level ranges 20-60, vs mob level ranges 20-60.

Given the high quality of the source material (which you claim anyway), this shouldn't be a problem?

Looking forward to that! :)

[loramin]

As I pointed out a few posts ago, the information which is described as "excellent work", contains a statement from the poster acknowledging that said information is at best "lacking" due to a small sample size.

You conveniently ignored this, of course.

I understand disinformation and acting stupid are parts of your forum persona, so if I need to requote that a few times more lmk.

I ignored nothing (and also refrained from personal insults, something you don't seem to have the basic decency for).

I responded by pointing out that classic evidence doesn't come in nice/neat/tidy packages where someone from 1999 spells out exactly how everything worked with no controversy: virtually ALL classic evidence is some crappy two-sentence hint in the comments section of Allakhazam from 2002.

Unfortunately, that's just the reality of trying to piece together a 20+ year old game with zero original source code, from a time before the Internet was fully archived! But A) if that's all you have, you have to make the best of it, and B) Nilbog has lots more evidence that we can't see, so presumably that post wasn't the entire basis for the decision: it was just one more "break the camel's back" straw.


@loramin perhaps you and your buddies can elaborate on how the available data can be extrapolated into a model that covers caster level ranges 20-60, vs mob level ranges 20-60.


Maybe instead of coming at this with the mentality of child who's had their toy taken away, you could have a little respect for the project you have so much passion over?

[Chortles Snortles]

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

[derpcake2]

Maybe instead of coming at this with the mentality of child who's had their toy taken away, you could have a little respect for the project you have so much passion over?

I asked you a very simple question.

Is this strawman the best you can do, or did your reading abilities fail you?

Let me know if you need me to take this a few steps back. :)

[derpcake2]

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

remember that time you posted on FoH

that worked out well

[loramin]

I asked you a very simple question.

Is this strawman the best you can do, or did your reading abilities fail you?

Let me know if you need me to take this a few steps back. :)

So you're attacking me personally, not my argument, but you have the gaul to (misuse) logical fallacies like The Strawman Argument? You must have been a star debater at your high school.

Meanwhile, you ignored my three paragraph response to your question.

[Jimjam]

I wanted to spend hundreds of hours arguing with people in bad faith, I'd have taken it up with Loramin

[starkind]

I can't wait for charming _fix_ as it is indeed a more classic and more tested patch than the current guesswork and feels.. to go in so people can stop hyperventilating about their endless supplies of fungi tunics and holgresh beads.

[Disease]

So you're attacking me personally, not my argument, but you have the gaul to (misuse) logical fallacies like The Strawman Argument? You must have been a star debater at your high school.

Meanwhile, you ignored my three paragraph response to your question.

Just post your wiki guide response and keep it moving. You complain more then anybody here and always seem to play victim when people can't take your shit anymore.

[Vivitron]

You're making so many false assumptions.

First off, when Green 2.0 rolls around, I plan to main an Enchanter. Any "nerfs" to the class will have already been added by the time I play it, so if I'm advocating to "nerf anyone" ... it's myself.

Why would I want to play a nerfed class? Well, why do I want to do anything on this re-creation of a game from '99? Because it's fun, and because I didn't get a chance to back in '99. But I want that experience I missed out in '99, I don't want to play some other fake game where Enchanters have unfair powers: that'd be like playing with cheat modes on.

But beyond all of that, you are woefully mistaken if you think I have any power or influence over Nilbog. That man respects evidence, plain and simple, and if he's making changes, it's because someone presented him with evidence. Someone like ... Dolalin.

Which brings me to my final point: if you want blame anyone, blame Dolalin. Blame him for doing what Nilbog asked for (ie. what posters like you and myself are too lazy to do): he presented evidence that proved Enchanters here were unclassic (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341727).

Or you could thank him, for taking the kid gloves off for you, and letting you play actual EverQuest :)

They're not going off Dolalin's research on this; they're going off Torven's*.

* The research: http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?p=266999
** The statement that they're planning to use it: https://www.takproject.net/forums/index.php?threads/eli5-changes-to-charming-resists-and-cha.19762/#post-99583

[Jimjam]

Oh that is some cool research! I wonder if the +4 level mod on charm is already in p1999. Will be nice to be added in if it isn’t!

[realsubtle]

I heard that they're going to raise the effective level of Enchanter Charm by +4 because of some evidence? Awesome! Enchanter is a beloved EQ class and its always nice to see it getting more love.

[Twochain]

Just post your wiki guide response and keep it moving. You complain more then anybody here and always seem to play victim when people can't take your shit anymore.

lmfao ya'll remember when big ROG raged at this guy for doing.. what he always does? Shit was pretty epic.


Anyone who claims p99 isn't classic because xyz is a gigantic, and I mean colossal nerd. Considering the other option of playing this era... is to play live, where the absolute abomination of what is the commonlands and freeport exist. I don't think rooted dragons is the answer, but I don't fucking complain about it endlessly, I give my opinion and respond if somebody responds to my opinion. Then move on.

I've spoken to a shit load of enchanters who played live, you know, the ones that actually raided and belonged to enchanter only forums, and they pretty much unanimously claim that charming back then was very similar, and that it was a lack of knowledge that was the issue. I played live - I don't even think I knew enchanters could charm NPCs. I knew they gave clarity and haste. Because I was 10. And that's why i asked just about everyone I could who raided back then. Because I recognize that I wouldn't know. But if you ask Loramin, every guild on every server rotated every mob.

Still appreciate his guides though lmao, he's done good things for the community, but jesus man learn to read the room.

[Vheran]

Anyone who claims p99 isn't classic because xyz is a gigantic, and I mean colossal nerd.

[Stryker85]

When is this change supposed to be implemented? It didn't get pushed into this most recent patch did it? So far I can't tell a difference on my enchanter.

[starkind]

I would probably pay $1000 just to log into the real classic again for 1 month just to see all u nerds STFU and realize how not classic these servers are, god bless its soul :d

It is as classic as it gets and a far cry better than 99% of everything else if not the best version of EQ available.

[unsunghero]

They wouldn't do it unless it was a nerf. They aren't going to do anything to make enchanters stronger

It will be a nerf