Pacify duration greatly reduced

[Grif]

Pacify's duration went from more than six minutes, to about two minutes. Didn't see any documentation in today's patch regarding if this was intended or not.

[p99portage]

Nah, not intended. they just fucked it up as per usual.

The original thread showing when it was changed is here : https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328802

I wouldn't expect a fix any time soon if past fuckups are anything to go by.

[p99portage]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

[Jimjam]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

I checked out the thread, lots of compelling arguments and references were made. Thanks for pointing it out!

[shalpin99]

Yeah .. so died multiple times due to this .. my ENC(60) is unplayable for me .. at least until I learn to adapt.

Seems this update was made in error?

I guess I'll play something else .. something without Pacify :)

[loramin]

Check out the other thread.

It was that long, we just got nuked by a single point of unreliable data.

So Nilbog has been building this place for a decade now. I think it's safe to say he's not biased towards any particular class ... or if he is, he's biased towards Enchanters ;)

He also has been compiling classic evidence for a decade, which means that he likely has access to more classic research than anyone (even including our classic researchers, like Dolalin or Rygar).

So which makes more sense? That Nilbog had access to evidence beyond what was mentioned in that thread, and he corrected the spell's duration accurately ... or that he "nuked" Enchanters based on "single point of unreliable data"?

[Jimjam]

I do wish he’d dump evidence in relevant thread before making changes. Yet again, it is not classic to see the man behind the curtain, so I understand maybe why not.

[Croco]

Just another in a string of countless examples where if players think something is bugged they have to submit 10 pieces of classic evidence, a blood sample, a 23 and me, and an affidavit from an OG everquest dev but if nilbog wants to change something he doesn't have to say shit to anyone or present any of the reasons why the change is happening. Rules for thee but not for me.

[Vivitron]

So Nilbog has been building this place for a decade now. I think it's safe to say he's not biased towards any particular class ... or if he is, he's biased towards Enchanters ;)

He also has been compiling classic evidence for a decade, which means that he likely has access to more classic research than anyone (even including our classic researchers, like Dolalin or Rygar).

So which makes more sense? That Nilbog had access to evidence beyond what was mentioned in that thread, and he corrected the spell's duration accurately ... or that he "nuked" Enchanters based on "single point of unreliable data"?

The most recent changelog now includes "Telin: Recorrected pacify to a classic era duration." And the thread has a 2019 Telin "Fixed, pending update." from when he fixed it from 42s to 7 min years ago.

So reading the tea leaves here I think Telin has been following that thread and updating Pacify's duration to match the balance of evidence there. IMO the post (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3704718&postcount=19) bivoac added after the recent patch thoroughly swings the balance of evidence back to 7 minutes, so maybe the latest change will be reverted.

[funry]

It should be 7 minutes. Telin please fix your mistake and never touch this again.

[Elroz]

Pretty sure the long max duration was accurate, but lulls had a high resist rate at high levels and almost never lasted their duration. Torven has been working on a classic resist breakdown for a while (he got the classic-era resists from old client decompiles). He did say this on a TAKP thread :

Nah. I recently figured out what classic era resists were. Sony left the server resist logic in the Kunark clients, which we can examine. Charm used to break over three times as often for NPCs within 10 levels of the player, because it had a resist floor of 10 and the resist rolls were 0-99 instead of 0-200. This is the equivalent of charming an NPC with 20 MR here. The September 4 2002 patch buffed casters a lot more than I previously realized. Furthermore the lull spell floors are also in the client, and resist rates of lulls were upwards of 50% at higher levels; they were bad.

But anyway, I don't know the details - he's the expert on this so I'd rather hear what he's found himself, his breakdowns are usually very thorough and informative.

[scifo76]

7 minute max duration Velious for sure.

[Impact1983]

The most recent changelog now includes "Telin: Recorrected pacify to a classic era duration." And the thread has a 2019 Telin "Fixed, pending update." from when he fixed it from 42s to 7 min years ago.

So reading the tea leaves here I think Telin has been following that thread and updating Pacify's duration to match the balance of evidence there. IMO the post (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3704718&postcount=19) bivoac added after the recent patch thoroughly swings the balance of evidence back to 7 minutes, so maybe the latest change will be reverted.

Should be a priority. Things like this hurt the already low server pop.

[Duik]

It should be 7 minutes. Telin please fix your mistake and never touch this again.

From the popular book "How to Win Friends and be Ignored".