Item recharging is an exploit of game mechanics [Archive]

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 12:32 PM

I am sure this thread will be controversial, however I think it needs to be brought up.

First off, one thing needs to be said: Recharging items using vendors is classic, there is no question about it. There should be no argument on this subject.

What i am concerned about is the assumption that VI never intended for this to be able to be done, and it was a thorn in their side from day one. From what I understand it was a coding issue that they could not resolve.

Most changes to recharging items did not happen untill around 2002, and most of these changes were made because the staff of forbidden rites was being used to recover raid wipes and saving hours of CR from failed raid attemps, Killing risk vs reward in the raid game. It was also being used by monks and Necro's to " battle rez" players to be able to kill raid targets that guilds should have failed on.

To fix this problem they removed the staff from Lady Vox's drop table and made the vendor buyback price ( on this staff and other items ) absolutely insane. They did this because they had not yet figured out how make vendors tell the difference between number of charges on otherwise identical items. On Oct. 9, 2003 they made it to where vendors could finally tell the difference between item charges making recharging items impossible.

Again, I agree this is classic. My concern is that this is probably an unintended exploit that is being heavily abused here. On P99 we strive to be as classic as possible, however, we remove many things that were left on live for quite some time for balance reasons.

We remove quests that give too much experience for example, Quests that gave too much coin, tradeskills that make you a profit selling back to vendors, fixed pathing exploits etc etc. All of these are classic, but were removed for balance reasons.

Why anyone thinks its alright for a pure melee class to be able to Root, Lifetap, Bind affinity, invis, rez, gate, port, enduring breath, levitate, dispell is beyond me. Many of these items are instant cast which is even more unbalanced. The classes who actually get these spells have to sit there for 3-10 seconds casting. On top of that, some of these items are not lore, meaning people can carry around a backpack full of them ( root and invis.)

These charged items were most likely put in the game for flavor and to give players a few casts of something they cant normally do for fun. They were meant to be used up and tossed for the most part. The charges were added to keep game balance, and being able to recharge them destroys that.

We have already made changes once to a charged item ( ivandyrs hoop.) Adversly affecting its drop rate ( which is quite unfair to people who just want to quest for the item ) Do we really want to allow people to abuse these items until we slowly realize its making parts of the game trivial and fix them one by one?

This entire situation is compounded by the fact that on live a small percentage of the population knew about vender recharging. On P99 it seems nearly everyone knows about it, making the problem much worse.

I know this post will be heavily scrutinized, trolled, flamed. But I felt this needed to be brought it. Its a Real problem.

Start of edited portion below:

There is no proof that can be gathered at this time that completely proves VI was against item recharging but wrap your mind around this:

In situations like this, one can only use common sense to make an assumption ( opinion ). They started to make changes to recharing items as early as 2001, slowly changing the buyback prices of many charged items, patch after patch as they became aware of balance problems. This is a fact, the staff of forbidden rites buyback was changed well before the Crypt masters conjering stone was. Both were in patch notes.

They finally found a way to fix it, and implimented it. Breaking item recharging in 2003.
The fact that you cannot find any information on the internet ( including wayback searches ) from before 2001 about recharging items is a testament to how hush, hush everyone was about it.

And again, using common sense, if they intended item recharging, why would they require a player to own TWO of the items, make them have to sell it to an "empty" vendor in a certain order and then buy them back. This is cmplicated by the fact that lore items would cause even more issues. Why wouldnt they just put in a " recharge npc" instead.

Its all circumstantial, but all of it put together makes a very strong and compelling ( opinion ).

Its common sense and Logic. Item recharing just does not make sense.

If it sounds like a bug, and acts like a bug, it prolly is.

And bugs are not intended.

People using bugs in game mechanics are using exploits.

Hasbinbad

11-07-2011, 12:36 PM

Samoht

11-07-2011, 12:37 PM

Not that I disagree, but this seems more like a rant than an attempt to prove that item recharging was never intended.

the fact that VI never intended for this to be able to be done

Proof?

Later on, around 2006 or so? They made it to where vendors could finally tell the difference between item charges making recharging items impossible.

Game was SoE by then.

Hasbinbad

11-07-2011, 12:38 PM

Game was always Sony..

Bazia

11-07-2011, 12:42 PM

Agree with OP, it's obviously unbalanced and too powerful.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 12:44 PM

Game was always Sony..

Two different departments with two distinctly different purposes.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 12:47 PM

Not that I disagree, but this seems more like a rant than an attempt to prove that item recharging was never intended.

Proof?

Game was SoE by then.

Its not a rant, its a legitimate concern.

I dont think anyone would need to prove item recharging was not intended. Its quite obvious.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 12:55 PM

Still sounds like an opinion stated as a fact. Your argument holds no water.

Humerox

11-07-2011, 01:04 PM

Why would Sony acquire itself (http://www.awn.com/news/business/sony-acquires-line-gaming-company-verant-interactive)?

Brad McQuaid interview excerpt:

Question: I thought 989 was almost exclusively a sports game company? Had they done anything else? I never really understood how you guys got "in" with that crowd.

At the time, 989 (then Sony Interactive Studios America) was split into two main studios, sports and non-sports. John Smedley was the Executive Producer (and later Director of Development) of the non-sports studio. Both studios worked primarily on Playstation 1 (and later Playstation 2) games.

But John was heavily into online PC games (mostly pay-for-play games like Cyberstrike). He also really wanted to work on some, so he started development of Tanarus (a non-persistent online tank warfare game) as sort of an experiement and technology proving ground.

Some time later he felt he was in a position to get additional funding and start an online RPG, and the EverQuest project was approved (not that it had that name yet (Steve Clover named EQ), nor even a team). He also didn't really have a lot of PC-oriented developers, much less RPG-types, so he looked around for local developers.

He saw the WarWizard 2 demo Steve, I, Kevin Burns, and Bill Trost had put together. He then noted that Milo Cooper (then at 989, working on the Gameday series) had done the art for WarWizard 1, and talked with him about us.

So John hired Steve and I to being work on EQ, and I was later able to bring on board Kevin, Bill, and many others.

The online games group grew and grew until we pretty much were our own studio in addition to the sports and non-sports studio. But then when PS/2 was announced, 989 management needed to expand to keep developing PS/1 titles and expand to the new platform, and so we (the online studio) spun off into our own company (Verant Interactive).

We'd by then started work on many titles (the game that would become SW:G, EQ expansions, Planetside, Sovereign, etc.), and found another Sony company (Sony Online Entertainment) to fund those titles.

Even later, after EQ launched and was extremely successful, SOE ended up buying Verant, and the rest is history.

Question: If meself recalls correctly, methinks it went, "Red Eye Entertainment" > "989 Studios" > "Verant Interactive".

The first company was Sony Interactive Studios, which was under SCEA (Sony Computer Entertanment America).

Later, this company changed names to 989 Studios.

Even later, btw, after we were gone, 989 Studios changed it's name to just SCEA, but kept 989 Sports as a 'brand'. SCEA is still in San Diego (and many other locations) making PS/2 games.

When it was 989 Studios, we left the company and founded Verant Interactive.

For a very short time, Verant was RedEye, but there was a name conflict, so we went to Verant.

Verant Interactive, an independent company, was then later purchased by Sony Online Entertainment (a totally different Sony entity). SOE is under Sony Digital which is under Sony Pictures.

The Verant name then faded away and now they are simply SOE.

Complicated? Yeah, I can barely keep it straight.

So no...it was not always Sony. Now you know the rest of the story.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 01:09 PM

Just to add correct info, Vendor recharing was completely removed in the Oct. 9, 2003 patch. Edited my main post to reflect that.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 01:11 PM

Vendor recharing was completely removed in the sept 9, 2003 patch.

Then it will never be removed on a classic server since recharging was clearly classic.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 01:19 PM

Two different departments with two distinctly different purposes.

But ran by a man that was with everquest from the start : John Smedley.

Smedley was involved with the creation and development of the original EverQuest and was co-founder of Verant Interactive, Inc., which became Sony Online Entertainment, Inc. (SOE) after it was purchased by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2000, Smedley Became president of SoE in 2002, when Brad left.

So ... You know what.. I think you are stating opinons as fact when you say the two companies had different purposes =) I think their main purpose was to make money. Control of the game never left VI founders.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 01:23 PM

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 01:24 PM

Then it will never be removed on a classic server since recharging was clearly classic.

Now you are just trolling. I specifically stated that it was classic in my OP. I also stated other things that have been considered overpowered, or unbalanced, yet were classic , have been removed.

So your statment is false, It might not be removed, but it being classic will have nothing to do with it. It would be up to the devs to decide whether its too powerful or game changing.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 01:26 PM

What's false about my statement? It's not only 100% truth, but backed up by your own posts.

Ele

11-07-2011, 01:33 PM

Then it will never be removed on a classic server since recharging was clearly classic.

He admitted that it was certainly classic and viable during the timeline that this server is attempting to emulate.

However at the same time he is putting forth the argument that this server has taken at least one item (hoop) that was classic, reasonably rechargeable, and useful and "fixed" it an attempt avoid imbalancing end game raid encounters. He would like to see this applied to other items which are being used daily by classes that otherwise should be required to either go without or rely on other classes to fill the niche. Examples: Clerics with instant invis rings v. single charge potions. Magicians with instant root nets v. earth pets. These classes do not innately have these abilities and it reduces reliance on other classes which was the very foundation of EQ.

Affecting a change to remove all recharging especially on Locket of Escape would irreversibly damage the Plane of Mischief scene unless it is coded to allow binding of other players which would also be extremely damaging.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 01:35 PM

Well... no.. What hasbinbad was calling Sony was a console-based sports game company (989 studios). Verant was not part of that. I think that console-based sports games are clearly distinctive from computer-based MMORPGs. That's a fact I can prove, not an opinion.

Oh for the love of Innoruuk!

Sony Owned 989 which had a sports and non-sports departments.

"At the time, 989 (then Sony Interactive Studios America) was split into two main studios, sports and non-sports"

The fact remains that you were attempting to link the fact that VI wasnt the team that made the changes to item recharges, it was SoE. When in fact one of the biggest players in everquest was in control of everquest from inception until way past the change to item recharging. Spfft

Mcbard

11-07-2011, 01:45 PM

Samoht

11-07-2011, 01:48 PM

Shiftin

11-07-2011, 01:56 PM

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 02:06 PM

The difference being, I think, that I can't remember ever hearing of people hooping down mobs in actual classic, where as it was actually very common for things like res staffs to be used and recharged in this fashion.

Entirely too many hoops had entered the world here due to their rarity in the lynuga quest being off, and people throwing huge chunks of money at lynuga knowing that the lifetap was essentially unresistable, a problem which has also now been rectified.

I can agree with you here, I dont think the hoop was as rare as it should have been.

I also do not recall lynuga standing in one place forever. I recall her being a wanderer, which attacked good races forcing her to be killed more making it hard for people to do the quest. And she may have posibally had a place holder as I recall paying a tracker one day back in 2000 to find her and she wasnt in zone for over 4 hours.

I still beleive that there will be more problems caused by item recharges, and I think the solution would be to just remove the ability all together, instead of letting people get over for months until the problem is realized and changed by devs. Its not like people using these things to their advantage are going to tell the devs what they are capable of.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 02:09 PM

I still beleive that there will be more problems caused by item recharges, and I think the solution would be to just remove the ability all together

This is clearly stated as an opinion. No changes are going to be made just because you think it's wrong. You still lack any kind of proof. Focus on the onus.

Slave

11-07-2011, 02:12 PM

Really the Hoop should have been left the way it was for purity. Unresistable lifetaps is absolutely classic. What it amounts to is basically a punishment for creativity.

Oh no, mere 26-man guilds could have brought down Trakanon! Would that have been so bad? It seems that the 2 megaguilds got what they wanted...

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 02:21 PM

The Ivandyr's Hoop (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=1933) fiasco caused the hoop to be nerfed because the frequency and magnitude by which it was being exploited, not the fact that it can be recharged.

When you're able to beat Trakanon (http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Trakanon) simply because you have 26 people show up and spam hoops (210 damage a click (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/spell.html?spell=524) x 6 clicks a hoop x 26 people > 32000 health), the game is clearly broken. You could then vender a single, fully charged hoop, and then buy the rest back to reload and do it again.

Hoops are still obtainable, but their drop rate is nerfed, and lifetaps were also changed so that they're no longer unstoppable. The recharge nerf might not have even been necessary, but definitely helps to keep those that would abuse it in line with the spirit of difficulty of the game.

Melee paying for a charge of locket of escape for one bind in plane of mischief (where other classes can already bind) is not game breaking.

See the difference?

As I originally stated, I am only trying to assist with your petition by empowering you. The onus is on you to show substantial reasoning as to why it should be removed. All you did was incorrectly state that it was never intended and expect it to be removed because you said so.

I liked that Ele tried. Some additional arguments were provided to show where item recharging might not be in the spirit of the game. But overall, this isn't going away.

You are right, its an opinion. I can man up to that fact. To call it incorrect is a bit of a stretch however. Just becuase I cannot provide you a quote from Brad or any of the other devs saying that it wasnt intended doesnt mean it was intended.

In situations like this, one can only use common sense to make an assumption ( opinion ). They started to make changes to recharing items as early as 2001, slowly changing the buyback prices of many charged items, patch after patch as they became aware of balance problems. This is a fact, the staff of forbidden rites buyback was changed well before the Crypt masters conjering stone was. Both were in patch notes.

They finally found a way to fix it, and implimented it. Breaking item recharging in 2003.
The fact that you cannot find any information on the internet ( including wayback searches ) from before 2001 about recharging items is a testament to how hush, hush everyone was about it.

And again, using common sense, if they intended item recharging, why would they require a player to own TWO of the items, make them have to sell it to an "empty" vendor in a certain order and then buy them back. This is cmplicated by the fact that lore items would cause even more issues. Why wouldnt they just put in a " recharge npc" instead.

Its all circumstantial, but all of it put together makes a very strong and compelling ( opinion ).

Its common sense and Logic. Item recharing just does not make sense.

If it sounds like a bug, and acts like a bug, it prolly is.

And bugs are not intended.

People using bugs in game mechanics are using exploits.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Brinkman
I still beleive that there will be more problems caused by item recharges, and I think the solution would be to just remove the ability all together

This is clearly stated as an opinion. No changes are going to be made just because you think it's wrong. You still lack any kind of proof. Focus on the onus.

I never said this statment was a fact of any kind. Me using I " think" should have lead you to that conclusion without you having to post about it lol.

No changes are going to be made just because you think it's wrong. You still lack any kind of proof.

You are right, all it takes is for my opinon to be agreed upon by other devs, making it their opinion, and then things could get changed.

Just like it was their "opinion" that Ivandyrs Hoop was too powerful.

End this war of words and opinions vs facts. End your troll, Ive already admitted that its an opinion now. So can you now open your eyes, look at the facts of the matter and realize item recharging, based on all information availible was " most likely, a bug that was not intended"

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 02:47 PM

Edited my post to make it an opinion.

Now do you have anything to contribute to said opinion?

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 02:51 PM

Fix item recharging, then make SK/necro taps work on raids correctly again :P.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Fix item recharging, then make SK/necro taps work on raids correctly again :P.

Yeah they kinda dimnished a few classes abilities because of the hoop deal.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 03:09 PM

From what I can tell, you've now realised I was correct but still refuse to concede it openly because you seem to either have some resentment towards me for being right or are too proud for being wrong yourself.

Either way, please reread this:

I am only trying to assist with your petition by empowering you. The onus is on you to show substantial reasoning as to why it should be removed.

The developers here do not care about opinions. They need facts. They need quotes, citations, proof. They're trying to maintain a classic server, and if things are un-classic, they will be hard pressed to adjust them.

First off, one thing needs to be said: Recharging items using vendors is classic, there is no question about it. There should be no argument on this subject.

Your original post is very presumptuous. You're clearly arguing for a change that you're petitioning to be implemented, and you act like just because you brought it up, it's going to be changed. Regardless of what that content is, you do not give any actual reasons as to why it should be changed. There's no onus to your post. It quickly degrades into a rant.

If you really want this to be changed, step back and reassess what it is you want. Make an outline with some critical points, build an argument with proof and citations, and then present it in the proper forum section (http://www.project1999.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6).

Don't rant and flame about it in server chat. That's not how things work here. P99 is going to require reasonable arguements. Here are some examples from this very thread:

Why would Sony acquire itself (http://www.awn.com/news/business/sony-acquires-line-gaming-company-verant-interactive)?

Humerox cites his quotations on how Verant was not a part of Sony, therefore EverQuest was later bought by SoE. He doesn't just throw around wild accusations.

Examples: Clerics with instant invis rings v. single charge potions. Magicians with instant root nets v. earth pets. These classes do not innately have these abilities and it reduces reliance on other classes which was the very foundation of EQ.

I brought this up once before. Ele shows us other examples of how recharging could ruin the spirit of the game. His examples are quite small, however, and hardly game-breaking.

Oh no, mere 26-man guilds could have brought down Trakanon! Would that have been so bad? It seems that the 2 megaguilds got what they wanted...

There was a lot more to using the hoops than just being a 26-man zerg guild. Hoops made the encounters trivial. How long do you think it would normally take to kill Trak with 26 people without hoops as opposed to about the time it takes you to click your hoop 6 times? What about strategy and group composition? Hoops really killed the immersion and difficulty of the game, whether or not they were 26 people armed with hoops or 126 people armed with hoops.

Slave

11-07-2011, 03:15 PM

26-man zerg guild

lol

But seriously, I hardly call getting 26 people together trivial. That is like 10% of the online population as it now stands.

skorge

11-07-2011, 03:21 PM

Hoops really killed the immersion and difficulty of the game, whether or not they were 26 people armed with hoops or 126 people armed with hoops.

What the OP is saying is that they "changed" the hoop here in P99. This change was not classic...so why won't they completely fix all items that are rechargeable? It's a known exploit and needs to be addressed in some manner.

It would be a simple fix: make a list of all items rechargeable and put in an insane vendor price (99,999p).

Now that the P99 staff has fixed hoops they can readjust lifetaps to put them back on classic scale.

Slave

11-07-2011, 03:26 PM

Now that the P99 staff has unclassically nerfed hoops...

fixed

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 03:28 PM

Uh no, just fix vendor recharging touch nothing else imo.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 03:29 PM

lol

But seriously, I hardly call getting 26 people together trivial. That is like 10% of the online population as it now stands.

You're ignoring the point of the thread and quoting me out of context to troll the post. 26 people to kill trak with hoops is zerg and is trivial. That's why it was changed.

What the OP is saying is that they "changed" the hoop here in P99. This change was not classic...so why won't they completely fix all items that are rechargeable? It's a known exploit and needs to be addressed in some manner.

It would be a simple fix: make a list of all items rechargeable and put in an insane vendor price (99,999p).

The problems with the hoop was game breaking. You (just like the OP) are missing critical reasons as to why the rest of the rechargeable items should be changed. Nothing else has been proven to be a fraction of the problem that hoops were, and as was stated twice before in this thread, nerfing lockets of escape would be highly not classic, especially in Velius.

Since item charging is clearly classic as quoted by the OP himself, the onus is on you to provide a reason why it should be removed. You haven't.

Now that the P99 staff has fixed hoops they can readjust lifetaps to put them back on classic scale.

Hoops are still available. Necro/hoop zerging was still expected to be an issue after nerfing the recharge which happened at the same time as the resist change. The resist change was meant to be implemented along with the recharge change, not as a separate fix to be changed later.

Slave

11-07-2011, 03:37 PM

You're ignoring the point of the thread and quoting me out of context to troll the post. 26 people to kill trak with hoops is zerg and is trivial. That's why it was changed.

The problems with the hoop was game breaking.

So then... what is not game breaking in your opinion? Having 1 or 2 guilds monopolize everything? And according to you, 10% of the server population is not enough to kill Trak without silly name-calling. So what is acceptable? 20% of the online population? 40%? Would 80% of all online people need to be in the same guild and killing Trakanon in order to fulfill your totally arbitrary sense of what is or is not game breaking?

The only thing this server was supposed to be predicated on is Classic game mechanics. Nerfing Hoops was not Classic, neither was destroying pet class aggro along with a host of other things. That's why we now have half the server population that we had 2 months ago.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 03:41 PM

So then... what is not game breaking in your opinion? Having 1 or 2 guilds monopolize everything? And according to you, 10% of the server population is not enough to kill Trak without silly name-calling. So what is acceptable? 20% of the online population? 40%? Would 80% of all online people need to be in the same guild and killing Trakanon in order to fulfill your totally arbitrary sense of what is or is not game breaking?

You sound like someone who was butt-hurt by the change. Nobody in this thread has said anything about the availability of raiding Trakanon. The hoop was given as a single example of item recharging being broken, but that's fixed now.

Reading your other posts in server chat so far today (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=457125&postcount=5), you seem to be in a trolling mood, and I get that, but there is a separate forum for that (http://www.project1999.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30).

skorge

11-07-2011, 03:51 PM

The problems with the hoop was game breaking. You (just like the OP) are missing critical reasons as to why the rest of the rechargeable items should be changed. Nothing else has been proven to be a fraction of the problem that hoops were, and as was stated twice before in this thread, nerfing lockets of escape would be highly not classic, especially in Velius.

Hoops are still available. Necro/hoop zerging was still expected to be an issue after nerfing the recharge which happened at the same time as the resist change. The resist change was meant to be implemented along with the recharge change, not as a separate fix to be changed later.

First of all, as far as the hoops issue goes...it still must be screwed up. Hoops were going for 6k on our server on average even during Kunark era, which means they must have been uber rare. Based on the 6k price range, it should take roughly 5k of rubies on average to score an Ivandrys Hoop - what guild would spend 5k x 30 people = 150k on Trak? This is kinda derailing the thread but the Hoop deal needs to be looked at again if its not taking about 5k or so on average to get one...this will open up them reverting lifetap resists back to classic.

Secondly, the staff should have never even made the change to start with since this is a classic server (maybe in regards to Lyguna dropping the hoop less often)...in this regard the OP is valid in wanting changes made to all rechargeable items because he thinks to himself "hey they made this change, so why dont they make this change too - it makes sense."

Sure other rechargeable items are not game breaking but the thing is, they went ahead and made other non-classic changes here, so why not stop there?

Samoht

11-07-2011, 04:04 PM

I want to take the second to point out that this project is trying to remain as close to classic as possible. That includes certain items with known OPness (guise, manastone, fungus staff) to be available for a short amount of time before being taken out.

We're not here to argue about that. The intent is to be as close to classic as possible, and if people were flagrantly abusing the hoops on live as they were on P99, I'm sure it would have been addressed back then.

The hoop was 1 (ONE un une uno unus ena um uma eine eins), I'll repeat that, ONE example of an item that should not be rechargeable due to game-breaking mechanics, and that's been handled.

You. Need. More. Proof.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:10 PM

From what I can tell, you've now realised I was correct but still refuse to concede it openly because you seem to either have some resentment towards me for being right or are too proud for being wrong yourself.

Based on your posts I realized I was in error for using the word "fact" one time, and the tone of my Op was off because of that. With that, I changed my OP dramatically.

Doing all of that should have shown quite obviously that I was OPENLY conceding to the idea that I cannot prove VI didnt intend for vendor recharging to be in game.

Seriously , come one. This is part of my edited OP

"There is no proof that can be gathered at this time that completely proves VI was against item recharging "

Would you like me to start a new post saying Samoht was right, its an opinion!!

What I wont let go of is my opinion.

This thread is allowed in Server chat because its not considered a bug atm. Its quite obvious that the devs on p99 felt item recharging needed to be in game... as using the titanium client as a base, they had to unbreak item recharging. What I am doing is saying I think it needs to be looked at again.

How about instead of trolling my thread, and trying to get it moved you answer one simple question.

What is your opinion on how Vendor recharging works, do you think that the way its done was implimented by VI and intended to work that way? I.E needing two of the same item, having to sell items in a certain order and so on. Do you THINK it was intended?

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:12 PM

You. Need. More. Proof.

I dont need proof about an opinion, its been fixed, get over it and stop trolling.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 04:17 PM

You haven't proven anything. I've reread your original post, and it actually seems to be moving away from recharging items to melees using consumables at all.

Why anyone thinks its alright for a pure melee class to be able to Root, Lifetap, Bind affinity, invis, rez, gate, port, enduring breath, levitate, dispell is beyond me. Many of these items are instant cast which is even more unbalanced. The classes who actually get these spells have to sit there for 3-10 seconds casting. On top of that, some of these items are not lore, meaning people can carry around a backpack full of them ( root and invis.)

This is obviously working as intended, and obviously classic. You would completely undermine entire class/race based tradeskills to remove clickables. Alchemy, Make Poison, and Tinkering become worthless if pure melees aren't allowed to use them.

Just to add correct info, Vendor recharing was completely removed in the sept 9, 2003 patch. Edited my main post to reflect that.

By the way, where did you find this information? Your original post needs to be updated to either link to or quote the patch notes. Both if you're looking for an A+

Atmas

11-07-2011, 04:25 PM

People's advanced knowledge of what's coming down the pipeline and what can be exploited makes this non-classic. I'd imagine if people pulled a lot of the stuff they do on this server that SoE would have had different priorities for patching.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:27 PM

You haven't proven anything. I've reread your original post, and it actually seems to be moving away from recharging items to melees using consumables at all.

This is obviously working as intended, and obviously classic. You would completely undermine entire class/race based tradeskills to remove clickables. Alchemy, Make Poison, and Tinkering become worthless if pure melees aren't allowed to use them.

This is absolutly about recharging items, Consumables i have no problem with at all. As they are CONSUMED, and it takes some sort of effort to replenish them. Vendor Recharging these items makes consupmtion of said clicks a non-factor.

I used melees as an EXAMPLE of how broke item recharging is. They are not supposed to have an endless supply of these abilities, and they gain the most from them. Many of these charged items have effects that no tradeskill can make as well.

I will give you this, you are a world class troll. Keep trying to derail my thread, enjoy talking to yourself.

btw you have not answered my question... here it is once again.

What is your OPINION on Item recharging, to you think VI implimented it and intended it to work the way it does ?

Samoht

11-07-2011, 04:31 PM

This is absolutly about recharging items, Consumables i have no problem with at all. As they are CONSUMED, and it takes some sort of effort to replenish them. Vendor Recharging these items makes consupmtion of said clicks a non-factor.

You do realise that theoretically, a 10-dose spirit of the wolf potion with a single dose on it can be recharged the same way, right?

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:33 PM

By the way, where did you find this information? Your original post needs to be updated to either link to or quote the patch notes. Both if you're looking for an A+

It was the October 9th patch of 2003, not september 9th the patch notes run together on Allahkazam if you arnt carefull while scrolling down.

------------------------------
October 9, 2003
------------------------------

** Interface **

- Merchants now separate items with different charges in their list.
For example, 9 dose and 10 dose potions will show up as separate items
on the merchant's list. Items with the same amount of charges will be
stacked. NOTE: This will remove the ability to "recharge" items by
selling them to a vendor and buying them back.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:35 PM

You do realise that theoretically, a 10-dose spirit of the wolf potion with a single dose on it can be recharged the same way, right?

Right, and the ability to recharge that should be removed as well, not the ability to make them.

You bring up yet another problem with item recharging. It makes doing tradeskills sort of pointless when nobody will buy them from you once they have two in their possesion to recharge on the cheap.

I'm lost to the reason you even brought this up, as it further illustrates my opinion. Item recharging is wrong.

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 04:37 PM

Yes, there is a lot to be said of them becoming aware of the bug as it existed and how quickly they were able to fix it.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:43 PM

Answer the question samoht, prove you are not just a troll trying to derail

What is your OPINION on Item recharging, to you think VI implimented it and intended it to work the way it does ?

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 04:55 PM

Found this link searching google for Recharge subjects

http://www.showeq.net/forums/showthread.php?1495-way...-off-topic-eq-question

This is from the show-eq forums of all places lol. Here is a quote from one of the replies about the nerf.

"Unfortunately this trick has become far too common knowledge for Verant to ignore"

This pretty much sums up p99 Its rampant here.

I dont think VI or sony ever ignored it, It is my opinion they didnt have the ability or coding to fix it until october 2003. If they did, why would they change prices instead of simply breaking the recharge ability altogether, sooner.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:01 PM

Verant (actually Verant's predecessors...) never intended for FD to be a pulling tool, so that's an exploit too.

You are correct, and there are even quotes from brad saying so, not gonna take time to find them however.

The problem with FD pulling was that players simplyfound a use for an ability VI didnt forsee. The only choice they really had was to remove the ability completely, or let it go.

This situation is different, as I beleive they never wanted it in but couldnt fix it right away, did what they could to stop people from doing it ( raise buy prices ) and when they finally found the solution , they put it in.

YendorLootmonkey

11-07-2011, 05:12 PM

Samoht

11-07-2011, 05:14 PM

I'm sorry, I got a business call when I was trying to respond.

What is your OPINION on Item recharging, to you think VI implimented it and intended it to work the way it does ?

A middle ground exists. Whether or not it was intended; it was classic. There are excellent examples of when it should be allowed and excellent examples of when it shouldn't, and as a result, I agree with the current implementation: allowing recharging of items and keep in line with the classic time line. If something is found to be game breaking (hoop) fix it. Leave everything else as is until it is planned to be changed, if it is to be changed at all. There's no reason to condemn the entire system because of a single flaw (that's been fixed).

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:29 PM

If you make the case that item recharging was "not intended" and therefore a "bug that needs to be fixed", then you could also easily make the case that the class-based XP penalties were "not intended" because they were eventually fixed, and that change should go in now, too. Good luck with that. Also, you may as well remove all bind points from the Firepots and bind those toons somewhere else, because that was never intended either based on Verant/SoE fixing it so quickly upon release of Kunark. Why pick and choose, dude?

I can understand what you are saying man. I think vender recharging quite a bit different however.

The exp penalties were absolutly intended, plenty of posts by original devs. They were changed because the face of MMO's was changing and they wanted to stay competetive with WoW etc.

I look at the firepot situation in the same way I look at manastones, pre-nerf fungi staff etc. We want to try to emulate classic in all ways possible that dont break the game or make things too overpowering. and they were quite limited. None of these do so.

What im trying to say here is that VI wanted to remove the recharging earlier but could not, based on coding issues or what have you. Im not saying they should fix it because they eventually did, Im saying it should be fixed because VI wanted to but couldnt.

I compare vendor recharging to quests giving way too much exp, or quests giving out too much plat etc etc. VI did not fix some of these for years , yet they are removed here on p99 because its game breaking.

Hundreds of people running around with basically endless amounts of abilities they shouldnt have, or should have very limited access to, is gamebreaking imo.

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 05:29 PM

If it was discovered and so rampant sooner, it would have been fixed sooner. The point is it is a total bug that they never intended, classic or otherwise and was hot fixed as quickly as possible.

What we have instead is the issue "bandaided" for one item, necro/sk taps broken in some encounters and a bunch of other items still rechargable without getting a new one.

Just isn't right guys, sorry :/.

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 05:33 PM

How some people choose to ignore that it is a glaring bug, a story of ninja trolling.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:33 PM

I'm sorry, I got a business call when I was trying to respond.

A middle ground exists. Whether or not it was intended; it was classic. There are excellent examples of when it should be allowed and excellent examples of when it shouldn't, and as a result, I agree with the current implementation: allowing recharging of items and keep in line with the classic time line. If something is found to be game breaking (hoop) fix it. Leave everything else as is until it is planned to be changed, if it is to be changed at all. There's no reason to condemn the entire system because of a single flaw (that's been fixed).

Ok, I can agree with that to an extent, but you are still missing my point. What are we supposed to do, wait till people figure a new super OP thing to do with Item recharges and then, after they abuse it to heck, fix it? leaving recharing in the game just opens the door to too many other exploits.

What happens when this items gets put in with velious?

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6735

Just take out the ability, IMHO

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:39 PM

Lets not forget they nerfed the heck out of shaman slow agro ( non-classic) here on p99 because people were using the walking sleep click on raid mobs to gain agro. This is also a lynuga item thats rechargable. I think the agro was changed back later, but you get my drift.

IMHO just remove vendor recharging all together, as its just going to bring more problems in the future.

Ele

11-07-2011, 05:40 PM

What happens when this items gets put in with velious?

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6735

Just take out the ability, IMHO

People can just farm 11ty billion DA Idols for all the effort it takes to get 2 of those earrings.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 05:43 PM

How some people choose to ignore that it is a glaring bug, a story of ninja trolling.

How some people choose to ignore that it was classic, a story of distorted reality

What happens when this items gets put in with velious?

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6735

Just take out the ability, IMHO

I'm actually pretty certain that the 10th ring and all of it's goodies won't be implemented here for a really long time (if at all). How (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6789) OP (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6249) is (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6893) this (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6208) shit (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=7015)?

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote from alla on Staff of forbidden Rites page.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=560

Planes

QuoteReply
#Jun 01 2001 at 8:53 PMRating: Good

Anonymous

Anonymous

As our guild obtained one of those, its given to the monk (me) during major raids incase of complete wipe out.I'm to feign, wait til camp is clear /q come back and rez a cleric with it.Quite effective and sure as hell beats a CR into hate or fear or places like kael or skyshrine.

Game Breaking. If you fail you deserve the 1 hour CR, 30 min rebuff and retry. Item recharging makes raiding trivial.

YendorLootmonkey

11-07-2011, 05:45 PM

I can understand what you are saying man. I think vender recharging quite a bit different however.

The exp penalties were absolutly intended, plenty of posts by original devs. They were changed because the face of MMO's was changing and they wanted to stay competetive with WoW etc.

From the Developer's Letter:

"2. Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty. In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other."

How do you read that as "absolutely intended"?

I look at the firepot situation in the same way I look at manastones, pre-nerf fungi staff etc. We want to try to emulate classic in all ways possible that dont break the game or make things too overpowering. and they were quite limited. None of these do so.

Having the ability to instantly port/mobilize by gating and selecting from 12 different locations all over the world isn't overpowered? It was so overpowering, Verant/SoE removed the ability to bind there within a week or two of Kunark opening and people finding that room.

It is your opinion that item recharging "breaks the game". The fact remains that if it was that game-breaking or overpowered, Verant/SoE would have moved to make the buyback prices to insane levels much earlier. Or made it so rechargeable items couldn't be sold to vendors. Or any variety of ways they could have fixed it.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 05:45 PM

People can just farm 11ty billion DA Idols for all the effort it takes to get 2 of those earrings.

First Yael raid did this.

The fact remains that if it was that game-breaking or overpowered, Verant/SoE would have moved to make the buyback prices to insane levels much earlier. Or made it so rechargeable items couldn't be sold to vendors. Or any variety of ways they could have fixed it.

Or they would have separate database IDs for the item for the amount of charges it had... oh wait.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:47 PM

How some people choose to ignore that it was classic, a story of distorted reality

I'm actually pretty certain that the 10th ring and all of it's goodies won't be implemented here for a really long time (if at all). How (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6789) OP (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6249) is (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6893) this (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6208) shit (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=7015)?

The 10th ring will be in on this server, it was completed before luclin was released, the quest was in game and working throughout velious. The stuff is not that overpowered for velious, seems pretty much in line to me.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 05:49 PM

FT items are not that overpowered for Velius? Look at the helm and necklace again. That looks like shit that came out about a week before Luclin (it did).

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:51 PM

From the Developer's Letter:

"2. Class-based penalties are not appropriate. Classes are roughly equivalent in power throughout the level ranges, and the versatility does not make up for that penalty. In fact, the majority of changes made to classes in the name of balance in the last year were based on the assumption that, at the high end, each class should still be roughly as needed and balanced as any other."

How do you read that as "absolutely intended"?

Having the ability to instantly port/mobilize by gating and selecting from 12 different locations all over the world isn't overpowered? It was so overpowering, Verant/SoE removed the ability to bind there within a week or two of Kunark opening and people finding that room.

It is your opinion that item recharging "breaks the game". The fact remains that if it was that game-breaking or overpowered, Verant/SoE would have moved to make the buyback prices to insane levels much earlier. Or made it so rechargeable items couldn't be sold to vendors. Or any variety of ways they could have fixed it.

About the exp penalty thing, when is that quote from? lol. dont post something and not say when its from. They mention changes... changes that were not in classic I assume.

Dont get me wrong here bro, but might I assume you got a bag of goodies you plan on recharging today? lol I truley do like ya yendor, just saying...

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 05:53 PM

How some people choose to ignore that it was classic, a story of distorted reality

I'm not disputing it existed on classic. I'm drawing attention to the fact that it was fixed as quickly as possible & as soon as they became aware of it and is a glaring bug.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 05:54 PM

FT items are not that overpowered for Velius? Look at the helm and necklace again. That looks like shit that came out about a week before Luclin (it did).

Look man, I played on Povar, I was there When Bentos got the first ring server wide, this is not something you want to argue with me about. He got his ring in september 3 MONTHS before luclin, and the facemask was then named for him, and the other items dropped then as well.

Edit: Also, one can only assume these items were populated since Velious went live, and were only seen in september because it was the first time the quest was completed. Meaning they were in game since Velious release.

skorge

11-07-2011, 05:55 PM

It is your opinion that item recharging "breaks the game". The fact remains that if it was that game-breaking or overpowered, Verant/SoE would have moved to make the buyback prices to insane levels much earlier. Or made it so rechargeable items couldn't be sold to vendors. Or any variety of ways they could have fixed it.

Then the question is, why did they change the hoop here in P99?...don't tell me that guilds back in 99/00 didn't use the hoop like guilds have used it here? That's retarded if any of you think a P99 guild was the first to use the hoop in that manner.

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 05:57 PM

K we'll stick with taps being fucked up on raid mobs, and just the hoop costing a ton of plat.

Shiftin

11-07-2011, 06:00 PM

FT items are not that overpowered for Velius? Look at the helm and necklace again. That looks like shit that came out about a week before Luclin (it did).

http://zam.zamimg.com/images/4/0/40e452e82140281497d8dfeadb9e47af.png

From a dozekar tear reward, not even NTOV.

Vulak robe has FT III. 10th ring war takes a full raid to manage, after tons and tons of work to get to that point. Those 10th ring war rewards are absolutely in line with what they should be.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:00 PM

FT items are not that overpowered for Velius? Look at the helm and necklace again. That looks like shit that came out about a week before Luclin (it did).

Next thing you are going to say is that the Avatar of War should not be in game because he was only killed 2 weeks before luclin so remove the ability to get Blade of carnage etc....

You are really going down the wrong path.

Nice derailment tho

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:02 PM

I'm not disputing it existed on classic. I'm drawing attention to the fact that it was fixed as quickly as possible & as soon as they became aware of it and is a glaring bug.

Four years is extremely fast, huh.

Edit: Also, one can only assume these items were populated since Velious went live, and were only seen in september because it was the first time the quest was completed. Meaning they were in game since Velious release.

Good catch before letting it hit the fan. It might not have been implemented at the same time as Velius was released. I remember the Coldain rings being EXTREMELY buggy after the first few.

Then the question is, why did they change the hoop here in P99?...don't tell me that guilds back in 99/00 didn't use the hoop like guilds have used it here? That's retarded if any of you think a P99 guild was the first to use the hoop in that manner.

Proof?

Vulak robe has FT III. 10th ring war takes a full raid to manage, after tons and tons of work to get to that point. Those 10th ring war rewards are absolutely in line with what they should be.

Vulak definitely wasn't implemented during Velius. It was deemed too bugged to keep and then taken out. I can only assume that the rewards were then updated to make it pertinent when it was implemented and competing with Luclin bosses.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:02 PM

Then the question is, why did they change the hoop here in P99?...don't tell me that guilds back in 99/00 didn't use the hoop like guilds have used it here? That's retarded if any of you think a P99 guild was the first to use the hoop in that manner.

Word.

It might have been used a little less, because it was apparently more rare, but people had them.. Shoot I had one before I was even in a guild.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:06 PM

When the super troll is losing the battle, he tries to change the subject and waste your time making you chase down proof ( links ) of things that everone knows is true, like the 10th coldain ring rewards being in game.

Uber fail.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:07 PM

Item entries aren't even in allakhazam Nov 2001 for some of the items. When was Luclin launched? 10th war quest wasn't even commented on until 2003.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:12 PM

Item entries aren't even in allakhazam Dec 2001. When was Luclin launched? 10th war quest wasn't even commented on until 2003.

You sir are a tool, I will allow this troll satisfaction one time.

Luclin release was December 4, 2001

Here I wasted my time, are you happy.

Faceguard of bentos the Hero... one of the links YOU provided troll.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=6893

Third response October 25, 2001 Almost 2 months before luclin.

QUOTE

"Oct 25 2001 at 6:14 PMRating: Sub-Default
psycoholic
282 posts
Yep yep, & it was on triton's website months ago. =)"

This was over a month after Bentos was awarded the mask and completed his ring. Items took a while to get uploaded to websites sometimes.

Happy now that I wasted my time?

I was there, I helped Bentos get his ring.

Shiftin

11-07-2011, 06:13 PM

Four years is extremely fast, huh.
Vulak definitely wasn't implemented during Velius. It was deemed too bugged to keep and then taken out. I can only assume that the rewards were then updated to make it pertinent when it was implemented and competing with Luclin bosses.

http://legacyofsteel.net/Archives/Post/2001-08-29

Luclin went live December 4, 2001.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:24 PM

Proof?

You ask for proof about things that are so painfully obvious, that its painfully obvious you are simply trolling and trying to derail my thread.

I would reccomend everyone just ignore this guy and stay on subject.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:25 PM

http://legacyofsteel.net/Archives/Post/2001-08-29

I don't see any FT3 items on that link.

You ask for proof about things that are so painfully obvious, that its painfully obvious you are simply trolling and trying to derail my thread.

I'm sorry, that's just not the way things work here. The onus is on the people demanding changes and insisting things aren't classic. Just like skorge has no proof that people used hoops before, you've brought no proof that items should not be rechargeable.

Face it: it's classic. It's not going anywhere.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:32 PM

I don't see any FT3 items on that link.

I'm sorry, that's just not the way things work here. The onus is on the people demanding changes and insisting things aren't classic. Just like skorge has no proof that people used hoops before, you've brought no proof that items should not be rechargeable.

Face it: it's classic. It's not going anywhere.

Vulak definitely wasn't implemented during Velius. It was deemed too bugged to keep and then taken out. I can only assume that the rewards were then updated to make it pertinent when it was implemented and competing with Luclin bosses.

Not from this kill, but you know what we do see? Vulak dead, before months before luclin, when you stated he wasnt in before luclin.

Pathetic troll attempt.

And here is your pre-luclin FT proof: http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=7015 crown of Narandi link with posts from November 9 2001, a month before Luclin

Go away

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:36 PM

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:37 PM

The onus is on the people demanding changes and insisting things aren't classic. Just like skorge has no proof that people used hoops before, you've brought no proof that items should not be rechargeable.

Face it: it's classic. It's not going anywhere.

I never insisted it wasnt classic, now you are just getting silly.

I stated in my OP that it WAS classic, and that its simply an overpowered bug that needs re- looking at.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:39 PM

I love how you're resorting to name calling now that your bubble is burst. You can't change the fact that I'm right about recharging, but there's nothing I can do about you being rude on an Internet message board.

I love how you are completely ignoring how wrong you were in the last 3 pages of posts. I guess thas all you can do when your bubble is burst and cannot even make a statment about how you were wrong.

Unlike some of us who own up to mistakes.

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:39 PM

A) If it was such a bad bug, it would have been fixed sooner

B) If you want it looked at, you need to present a better case. Looks like we've gone full circle now.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:41 PM

My points are made, not going to argue with this guy anymore. Peace.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 06:45 PM

A) If it was such a bad bug, it would have been fixed sooner

Yeah just like Ivandyrs hoop bug was fixed so soon after p99 release ( 2 years)

B) If you want it looked at, you need to present a better case. Looks like we've gone full circle now.

I dunno I think I make a good case. Guess you and I are done here, no?

Samoht

11-07-2011, 06:50 PM

Yeah just like Ivandyrs hoop bug was fixed so soon after p99 release ( 2 years)

I don't care to comment on the response time to the Ivandyr's hoop since I'm unaware of when it was originally exploited.

I dunno I think I make a good case. Guess you and I are done here, no?

That's not up for you and I to decide, but if it I were a P99 developer reading this, I certainly wouldn't be convinced.

Nirgon

11-07-2011, 07:55 PM

Four years is extremely fast, huh.

They knew about it day one and just "put it off" for 4 years. You sunk my battleship.

So what guild are you in friend and what item have you been recharging. Time for this thread to take a new direction imo.

Harrison

11-07-2011, 08:01 PM

Strafe running is also exploiting.

There are a LARGE amount of things we take for granted that are, by definition, exploits of game mechanics.

Slave

11-07-2011, 08:05 PM

Damn where did Tags go?! I wanted to make one called "Burst His Bubble."

Flunklesnarkin

11-07-2011, 08:07 PM

What items do people find offensive being recharged?

Honest question.... There is still a lot i dont know about eq.

deramius

11-07-2011, 10:08 PM

Don't forget that part of the fun of "recreating classic" is having fun playing with overpowered tricks that were later removed from the game.

Brinkman

11-07-2011, 10:24 PM

Don't forget that part of the fun of "recreating classic" is having fun playing with overpowered tricks that were later removed from the game.

Im with you there, but once they mess with a few items, they are all open to debate.

Pudge

11-07-2011, 11:40 PM

i agree with OP. this will affect pvp greatly.

while everyone WANTS to be able to recharge their items.. everyone also wants to stand on roofs of buildings all day and collect exp risk-free. these are exploits and should be removed

Sarkhan

11-08-2011, 01:11 AM

Can't believe I actually read those 10 pages of mostly trolling (although i think the trolling made me keep reading, so thanks Samoht)

How about we look at item recharging a different way... They did realize it was exploitable so they did raise buyback prices but they never did put the prices to 99999 when that would have been the simplest fix. Instead they simply raised the buyback price to 10k+ (depending on the item).

With the economy of P1999 maybe they should raise the buyback prices even more (like, 50k+ depending on items). This will leave recharging still in, but far less desirable and when people are willing to drop the coin to recharge the item, it will at least be a fair amount of coin taken out of the system....

And for those who feel the need to troll and say things like "get proof, your opinion doesn't matter" I think you're missing the fact that this IS a thread in the "Server Chat" forums and it is precisely that -> Server chat, talking about the server and aspects about it... The thread is not a direct petition to the GMs (even though I know they hope the GMs read it and give it thought) so they should be able to give their opinions and thoughts on the subject.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 01:37 AM

Where's the patch notes about necro taps on raid mobs

Lulz Sect

11-08-2011, 02:17 AM

since we al know about it, we shall all use it to our advantage so none of us has the upper hand on each other.

lets hold hands

YendorLootmonkey

11-08-2011, 02:32 AM

About the exp penalty thing, when is that quote from? lol. dont post something and not say when its from. They mention changes... changes that were not in classic I assume.

http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitewind/gtxt/guides/eqchanges.htm

They admitted that the design of the class-based XP penalties did not hold true in actual implementation of the classes, so they fixed it by removing the class-based XP penalties.

Dont get me wrong here bro, but might I assume you got a bag of goodies you plan on recharging today? lol I truley do like ya yendor, just saying...

No, I am a hybrid who has suffered a 40% class-based penalty from Day 1 even though we all know that Verant admitted that those class-based penalties were an oversight, not appropriate, and were later removed. If you can successfully make the case that something that is classic should be fixed ahead of schedule now, then I am gunning for the same treatment on the class-based XP penalties. And don't sit here and tell me removing those penalties wouldn't be game-changing for every hybrid currently playing.

However, as we all know, we have tried that fight and lost because "it's classic, deal with it." So I would expect the same from this attempt as well.

Murphy

11-08-2011, 03:17 AM

Im with you there, but once they mess with a few items, they are all open to debate.

A few items being one item that only affects guilds that used them to down dragons with a less than optimal raid force composition? The poor raiders! how will they ever beat the monster now.

Lovely

11-08-2011, 07:14 AM

skorge

11-08-2011, 09:33 AM

The EQ team knew about recharging for several years and never did anything about it at that time. They were 100% aware of it, they even helped guilds recharge items at the server wide test of tactics 18v18.

I find this issue pretty simple. If the Devs feel that recharging a certain item is to overpowered then they change that certain item instead of messing with the whole system just like they did with Ivandyr's Hoop.

Items with charges is one of my favorite things in EQ. It's an awesome time sink that make the game a lot more flexible and enjoyable.

The question is why did P99 mess with the hoop then? They should have NEVER messed with the hoop and lifetap resists. Period. That was a non-classic move. Guilds used the same strategy back in 99/00 on Live. To people who do not think so, you must be smoking something. On Live the hoop was much rarer, but it was obtainable for only 5-6k on most servers. To the guy who said show me proof. How about you show us proof otherwise?

Hell, go check out Fires of Heaven (http://www.fohguild.org/index.php). They dinged a warrior (take a guess who) 1-50 in 12 hours a few months after the server went live in 99. I'm sure if they figured out how to ding a warrior to 50 in half a day, when it took 99.9% of the remaining server 6 months, they surely knew about the Ivandrys Hoop (this is just one example).

Tamiah2011

11-08-2011, 09:42 AM

get rid of all clicky items, most are just exploits and game would be fine without them, I will follow whatever guide line R99 staff decides and live with them.

Murphy

11-08-2011, 09:52 AM

get rid of all clicky items, most are just exploits and game would be fine without them, I will follow whatever guide line R99 staff decides and live with them.

I think you need to exit stage WoW.

Tamiah2011

11-08-2011, 09:53 AM

I think you need to exit stage WoW.

WOW, would hate for EQ to be fair and balanced..

Rusl

11-08-2011, 10:02 AM

To build upon Yendor's point, they eventually made rangers ranged dps via AAs and autofire etc so let's implement that since it's obviously what was originally intended by verant.

Uaellaen

11-08-2011, 10:07 AM

lol you guys are so cute ... most of you havent even been playing this game back in 2000 and still argue like you have been there ... BEFORE luclin was ever released i was at FT 16 (cap) on live ... and before you say its impossible, its not ... fear 2.0 alone has 2 FT1 items, robe of inspiration and cazics brain ... i know items with the same FT value didnt stack at first, but i cant remember if that was also fixed before or after luclin ...

and as for the hoop, lifetaps been unresistable here, so yeah it was never used on live like it was used here ... because it was simply not this powerful, but its fixed now and back in line ...

conclusion: item recharge is classic, project 1999 tries to be as classic as possible (limited by information from 1999 ~2001 / coding issues), everything WORKS AS INTENDED

Uaellaen

11-08-2011, 10:12 AM

The question is why did P99 mess with the hoop then? They should have NEVER messed with the hoop and lifetap resists. Period. That was a non-classic move. Guilds used the same strategy back in 99/00 on Live. To people who do not think so, you must be smoking something. On Live the hoop was much rarer, but it was obtainable for only 5-6k on most servers. To the guy who said show me proof. How about you show us proof otherwise?

Hell, go check out Fires of Heaven (http://www.fohguild.org/index.php). They dinged a warrior (take a guess who) 1-50 in 12 hours a few months after the server went live in 99. I'm sure if they figured out how to ding a warrior to 50 in half a day, when it took 99.9% of the remaining server 6 months, they surely knew about the Ivandrys Hoop (this is just one example).

omg i totaly neglected that LOL ...

dude PLing a warrior from 1-50 in 1 day is piss easy, on live i got a chanter from 1~46 in 8 hours during velious ...

PLing a warrior from 1-50 in classic is even easier if you have access to a red / white dragon tooth (like FoH definatly did) and a cleric, mage, druid, chanter etc. behind you to buff the fuck out of you ... 3 ~4 people can easily PL any class from 1~50 in less then 24 hours playtime ...

Samoht

11-08-2011, 10:19 AM

The question is why did P99 mess with the hoop then? They should have NEVER messed with the hoop and lifetap resists. Period. That was a non-classic move.

This guy keeps saying the same thing over and over despite being given an answer that couldn't be more clear, and yet I get called the troll. It's laughable that people can be this ignorant on the Internet, but the ones with clear and concise logic backed by facts are the ones that are ridiculed.

Guilds used the same strategy back in 99/00 on Live. To people who do not think so, you must be smoking something. On Live the hoop was much rarer, but it was obtainable for only 5-6k on most servers. To the guy who said show me proof. How about you show us proof otherwise?

The onus is on you to prove it's wrong. You have to make a case for the change, not the other way around.

Hell, go check out Fires of Heaven (http://www.fohguild.org/index.php). They dinged a warrior (take a guess who) 1-50 in 12 hours a few months after the server went live in 99. I'm sure if they figured out how to ding a warrior to 50 in half a day, when it took 99.9% of the remaining server 6 months, they surely knew about the Ivandrys Hoop (this is just one example).

Irrelevant. Now you sound like the troll (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=457181&postcount=35) who brought up the Trakanon success rates since the hoop nerf. Who cares? This is about hoops, not group power leveling. "A few months after" what? A few months after they already had a few level 50 druids and clerics and shamans and enchanters and monks and SKs and necros and a big enough force to keep him logged in and leveling 24/7? I'm not impressed. Sounds to me like it's working as intended. Also, your link goes to their main guild page, so you haven't even proved it happened. I could easily say they downed Naggy within 5 minutes of the servers launching in 1999, give you a link to Google, and tell you to look it up yourself, but does that make it any more true than you providing random statistics that they can PL someone to 50 in 12 hours?

dude PLing a warrior from 1-50 in 1 day is piss easy, on live i got a chanter from 1~46 in 8 hours during velious ...

PLing a warrior from 1-50 in classic is even easier if you have access to a red / white dragon tooth (like FoH definatly did) and a cleric, mage, druid, chanter etc. behind you to buff the fuck out of you ... 3 ~4 people can easily PL any class from 1~50 in less then 24 hours playtime ...

Exactly.

skorge

11-08-2011, 10:26 AM

Samoht = troll of the year, if the proof is on me, then why was the change made by the P99 staff in the first place...so I need proof to have them reverse a change that was non-classic? Were lifetap resists nerfed in classic?

Samoht

11-08-2011, 10:37 AM

if the proof is on me, then why was the change made by the P99 staff in the first place...

You've asked this several times, and it's been answered several times. You seem to have a selective reading problem.

Slave

11-08-2011, 10:51 AM

Since this is Server Chat, I just thought I'd come in and say that Skorge is a highly respected and upstanding member of the P99 community and every single time I've dealt with him in game over the last year he has been, without fail, courteous and even-tempered. He is certainly not the troll in this thread.

Additionally, he's absolutely right about the Hoop. They should have never been nerfed, let alone lifetaps. And that's coming from a guy from one of the megaguilds who stand to lose out on kills if the Hoops were in as normal.

Basically it seemed that this change came down to lobby power, the same as the hackers not getting banned. The big guilds didn't want legitimate competition that could have thrown their entire mass-recruiting system out of whack and demonstrated it to be superfluous and outdated.

It's hard to overstate the fact that this is really the #1 issue on P99 now: rules favoritism.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Additionally, he's absolutely right about the Hoop. They should have never been nerfed, let alone lifetaps. And that's coming from a guy from one of the megaguilds who stand to lose out on kills if the Hoops were in as normal.

Normal? What's normal about having the ability to basically INSTAKILL Trakanon with a minimum requirement of 26 people? That's obviously game-breaking and needed adjustment. The strategy might have been available during live, but nobody has ever even proven that it was discovered until here on P99. The devs were well within their rights to fix it.

It's hard to overstate the fact that this is really the #1 issue on P99 now: rules favoritism.

Oh, is this a conspiracy theorist thread now?

Slave

11-08-2011, 11:06 AM

Normal? What's normal about having the ability to basically INSTAKILL Trakanon with a minimum requirement of 26 people? That's obviously game-breaking

What is game-breaking about it? Please answer as fully as possible; I am not trolling and would like to hear this explanation. If it's anything other than a thinly-veiled "but omgz my guild deserves this because we're zerg and others don't because they have slightly fewer members," I will be absolutely shocked.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 11:16 AM

What is game-breaking about it? Please answer as fully as possible; I am not trolling and would like to hear this explanation. If it's anything other than a thinly-veiled "but omgz my guild deserves this because we're zerg and others don't because they have slightly fewer members," I will be absolutely shocked.

What's game-breaking about completely trivializing an encounter? Ignoring the fact that it takes absolutely no group composition, preparation, or strategy, and that it can basically done in the time that it takes everyone in the raid to click their earring six times, I'm going to say risk versus reward.

What group composition, preparation, or strategy does it take if you're going to hoop a boss down? It can be done without healers (burn a rune on your first to engage person), without DPS (every person in the raid can be a cleric), without tanks (pull with Divine Aura), and/or without CC (boss is going to die within a few seconds). How much preparation do you think it's going to take to sell one fully charged hoop to a vendor and then buy 26 back? Once you have 27, that's basically all you'll ever need.

I guess if you want to say you can amass a large enough raid force so that composition, preparation, strategy, or time no longer matter, you still stand a chance of failure. In fact, if you try to ignore any of the first three in an attempt to compensate with size, you stand an even larger risk of failure. You can still be overwhelmed with adds. Your healers can still run OOM.

That's removed with the hoop exploit.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 11:57 AM

(PS: If you think getting 26 people together and working on the same thing is trivial, you've never run a guild before.)

If you think it's too hard to get 26 people with the same goals and the same guild tag together for a raid, then you need to be playing WoW, son.

Also:

Where did it say that?
lobby power

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 12:07 PM

So how about those live patch notes on lifetaps on raid mobs? I did find the one about item vendor recharging.

Slave

11-08-2011, 12:13 PM

So how about those live patch notes on lifetaps on raid mobs?

Lifetaps always had a gigantic negative modifier to resist, and still do on Live. That's just the way they roll. Not really sure why everyone calls them unresistable, they just had, have, and always will have, a modifier that was anywhere from -100 to -250 to resist.

guineapig

11-08-2011, 12:20 PM

Everyone stay on topic or GTFO.

This thread has nothing to do with who is in what guild or how easy or difficult it is to get a raid force together.

Tamiah2011

11-08-2011, 12:23 PM

Wands/clickys all ruin EQ, they were not meant to be exploited and the game was much funnier before they were decovered.

pickled_heretic

11-08-2011, 12:24 PM

guineapig

11-08-2011, 12:30 PM

i was wondering who was deleting my posts (no, i actually wasn't).

author credibility is very much relevant to the topic, since people are using original research to verify their claims. how can samoht be shit talking about trivializing raid content if he has never seen the raid scene on p99?

Your post was deleted because instead of adding to the conversation you were openly flaming. This is server chat.

Using a mass group Instaclick trick to kill a raid boss DOES trivialize the content... it's no different than the DA idol raids in Sky many moons ago that were also nerfed. I would question the credibility of somebody who says otherwise.

EnnoiaII

11-08-2011, 12:32 PM

Like you said, it was the same way on live for years (still is?). Shrug. I think if they thought it was game breaking, they would have fixed it. Some things that were unintended they kept, some they didn't.

I think if individual things show themselves to be game breaking (hoop) then they should be changed. Other than that, leave it alone.

FD splitting, fear kiting, snare kiting, pet pulling (being able to automatically single pull with the level ...51? Shadowknight/Necromancer pet, 'fixed' in PoP), being able to illusion/sit through a door (if you do it right) and a ton of other things were said to be exploits and 'not intended', but most of them were never changed and became basic mechanics of the game.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 12:37 PM

it's no different than the DA idol raids in Sky many moons ago that were also nerfed.

And I hear that using them in The Hole is fixed now, too.

but most of them were never changed and became basic mechanics of the game.

They were so small that they weren't game breaking. Just like a lot of the recharges. The hoop was, so it was nerfed.

pickled_heretic

11-08-2011, 12:39 PM

EnnoiaII

11-08-2011, 12:49 PM

Your post was deleted because instead of adding to the conversation you were openly flaming. This is server chat.

Using a mass group Instaclick trick to kill a raid boss DOES trivialize the content... it's no different than the DA idol raids in Sky many moons ago that were also nerfed. I would question the credibility of somebody who says otherwise.

The game is 12 years old. Obviously people are going to know all sorts of tricks and tactics that either were very secret or just plain weren't around when the content was fresh and new. How many people do you think, the first time they went to kill Nagafen, realized they needed resist gear? Or that Cazic Thule would randomly start hitting people with Cazic Touch if he got aggroed, or that the entire zone comes to aid him? Even if the Hoop nerf took 5 minutes of code changing, that 5 minutes could have been spent on something that would be beneficial to EVERYONE, not detrimental to 2 groups of people who are going to kill Trakanon ANYWAY, this just lets them get to sleep a little sooner. Content gets trivialized with time, it's just how MMOs work. The longer a game is around, the easier things get, whether it's figuring out some tricks over time or just realizing throwing countless bodies at something will kill it.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 12:51 PM

Your post was deleted because instead of adding to the conversation you were openly flaming. This is server chat.

Using a mass group Instaclick trick to kill a raid boss DOES trivialize the content... it's no different than the DA idol raids in Sky many moons ago that were also nerfed. I would question the credibility of somebody who says otherwise.

Making it so vendors accept items with various numbers of charges and list them separately is step 1. Keeping the Ivandyr hoop at an insane cost to recharge is step 2. Fixing lifetaps on raid mobs step 3. Solved imo.

I'm not up in here to hurt a guild using these mechanics, nor am I on the other side trying to ninja troll that glaring exploits should be kept classic. I just think its pretty messed up that SKs, necros and people using life tap weapons can't enjoy their benefits on raid mobs. I hate to see 2 classes that cast life tap hurt so badly because of an exploit like this.

Can the hoop proc and the regular spell line be put on different resist checks?

guineapig

11-08-2011, 12:52 PM

Even if the Hoop nerf took 5 minutes of code changing, that 5 minutes could have been spent on something that would be beneficial to EVERYONE, not detrimental to 2 groups of people who are going to kill Trakanon ANYWAY, this just lets them get to sleep a little sooner.

By your argument then why is this even an issue?
It only took 5 minutes to fix?
The 2 groups of people can kill the target anyway?
What's the problem?

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 12:54 PM

Problem is the hoop should be hurt not necros, sks and life tap proc weapons. I'm legit trying'ta be positive here.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 12:55 PM

not detrimental to 2 groups of people who are going to kill Trakanon ANYWAY

Trakanon is just one example of when it could get used. I used it because it is the premier raid target of the expansion until VP is released, and because he has a known health pool (32k HP). The hoop actually trivializes all current and future raids, not just Trakanon.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 12:55 PM

The above is true, but life taps in general should not be hurt, just the hoop.

guineapig

11-08-2011, 12:58 PM

now for some unmoderated flame by samoht, in this thread:

It's up to you to report it when you feel like you have been personally attacked in server chat. If you felt slighted by his statements then you need to report it. I am not here to read every single thing that everybody writes in every single subforum. I respond to petitions.

The fact that server chat is not the place to get off topic by attacking people does not change.

guineapig

11-08-2011, 12:58 PM

Problem is the hoop should be hurt not necros, sks and life tap proc weapons. I'm legit trying'ta be positive here.

I do not disagree with this.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 01:00 PM

I think its also up to your discretion to have a thicker skin when engaging in internet arguments :P.

booter

11-08-2011, 01:14 PM

Yeah, the hoop nerf was all wrong. They should have just made the recharge cost astronomical for that item and left resists alone, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

pickled_heretic

11-08-2011, 01:43 PM

I think its also up to your discretion to have a thicker skin when engaging in internet arguments :P.

exactly. i don't mind if people sling some mud at me, or others, as long as i am given some discretionary lenience to do it as well. that's how debates in real life work. author credibility is always a factor. ad hominem is not always explicitly a fallacy if it is true and relevant to the topic at hand.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 01:54 PM

Yeah, the hoop nerf was all wrong. They should have just made the recharge cost astronomical for that item and left resists alone, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Well it did need to be fixed quickly, and the problem is gone. It's a tweak I know the Big Emp can nail down whenever he has a minute. I'm not crying foul at all here, I'm just sayin'.

Uaellaen

11-08-2011, 01:55 PM

Trakanon is just one example of when it could get used. I used it because it is the premier raid target of the expansion until VP is released, and because he has a known health pool (32k HP). The hoop actually trivializes all current and future raids, not just Trakanon.

rofl, i wanna see you hoop cazic 2.0, or any NToV mob

Uaellaen

11-08-2011, 01:56 PM

Yeah, the hoop nerf was all wrong. They should have just made the recharge cost astronomical for that item and left resists alone, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

go look up the 17 previous threads where the devs replied that the lifetap "nerf" was going to happen anyway and was in line, changed from unresistable to a negative resist mod afaik, wich it should be ...

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 02:09 PM

rofl, i wanna see you hoop cazic 2.0, or any NToV mob

I just wanna see people be able to use their life taps on them :D.

john_savage1982

11-08-2011, 03:00 PM

I don't understand why this matter is even being discussed. Anybody who thinks that item recharging was intentional in classic and should exist here on P1999 have their heads in the sand. Does nobody realize how many "bugs" and "exploits" have been removed from P1999 in the name of balance? Item recharging is one of these bugs. I think that it is ridiculous to handle items on a case by case basis - or altering entire lines of spells - in order to try and balance the effects of a known exploit. How does that make sense? What sort of mental gymnastics do yall do to convince yourselves that item recharging makes sense?

I'll be the first to admit that some matters have shades of gray but this is so completely black and white that I'm flabbergasted anybody would even have the audacity to argue otherwise.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 03:04 PM

There's shades of grey with classic implementations and how things "should work" in theory and how things are game breaking, were only discovered later in EQ history and definitely should have to go.

Ninja trolling will be abound.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 03:06 PM

I'll be the first to admit that some matters have shades of gray but this is so completely black and white

You're right. It's very black and white. This is a classic server, and item recharging was classic, therefore we have item recharging. There's really no variation available or further explanation required.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 03:10 PM

I see your point man, but its like going back in time with the sports almanac Back to the Future style. It creates a very dark, alternate "1999" :P.

john_savage1982

11-08-2011, 03:10 PM

Giving pets low delay weapons that allowed them to attack REALLY fast with high damage was also classic yet that doesn't exist here. Explain.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 03:11 PM

Don't think so in Kunark.

YendorLootmonkey

11-08-2011, 03:12 PM

This is a classic server, and item recharging was classic, therefore we have item recharging.

Exactly. See also:

This is a classic server, and class-based XP penalties were classic, therefore we have class-based XP penalties.

This is a classic server, and binding in the firepot room for a short duration was classic, therefore we were able to bind in the firepot room for a short duration.

This is a classic server, and manastones dropped for a period of time in classic, therefore we have X amount of manastones in game.

This is a classic server, and the moss-covered twig dropped for a period of time in classic, therefore we had the 3/10 moss-covered twig drop here for a while, too.

etc
etc
etc

If you make the case for one scenario of "fixed way before its time", then you make the case for everything else being fixed way before its time. Including class-based XP penalties. Alas, not part of the timeline yet.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 03:23 PM

Would we ask the staff to go out of the way to implement other exploits that existed previously though. I know my share of pathing bugs etc I could test that could go back in. I'm sure a live GM wouldn't approve of recharging items and seeing a raid mob go down to hoops back in the day.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 03:25 PM

If you make the case for one scenario of "fixed way before its time", then you make the case for everything else being fixed way before its time. Including class-based XP penalties. Alas, not part of the timeline yet.

I'm forgoing being called a troll, being called out with not having raid experience, and made fun of for not leading a guild on P99 (honestly who cares if I've never led a guild on P99) to maintain this point exactly.

Don't open a can of worms just because you disagree with the label.

Unless you can prove it's game-breaking, or as the original post claims (still unsubstantiated) not intended, nothing is going to get changed. The hoop was, in fact, game-breaking, so it was fixed. If you want sweeping changes to item recharging just because it was taken out four years later, then you are inherently supporting many other changes that have no business being on the timeline from launch to Velious.

As far as I can tell, item recharging on live was handled exactly as it is here: if something was broke, it was considered the exception, and that particular function of recharging was fixed. This was the case for the rez staff in particular. Lockets of escaped still worked all the way up until 2003, which is 2 years after our timeline.

Would we ask the staff to go out of the way to implement other exploits that existed previously though. I know my share of pathing bugs etc I could test that could go back in. I'm sure a live GM wouldn't approve of recharging items and seeing a raid mob go down to hoops back in the day.

What are these exploits? Give them to the development team so that they can fix them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

skorge

11-08-2011, 04:01 PM

You're right. It's very black and white. This is a classic server, and item recharging was classic, therefore we have item recharging. There's really no variation available or further explanation required.

Troll. Me and you keep going back and forth. If what you say is true then why did the Hoop get tampered with? If what you are stating is true: "It's very black and white."

Slave

11-08-2011, 04:05 PM

Using a mass group Instaclick trick to kill a raid boss DOES trivialize the content...

If you think getting 26 people together and doing the same thing all at once is trivial, you have never led a guild before.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 04:09 PM

What are these exploits? Give them to the development team so that they can fix them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Killing someone right when they log out so it leaves a corpse but they still successfully log out, when they come back in they will have all their gear and a corpse at their feet. That should definitely go back in.

Also, the goos in city of mist should be targettable from the ground, where you can see the sky bridge. I was able to pathing exploit those for a while.

There's a pathing exploit just outside the stone spider room in solb. Its the room with I believe 3 LDC spawns and a water fall of lava behind it that if you make it through goes to the fire giant ledge area. That was a grand pathing exploit.

Hopefully, there's the bards/guards/nobles in Highkeep bug where you can stand behind the fire pot in the room with the gambling looking tables, let's put that back in if it's not here.

There was a bug if you put a back pack in someone's trade window, if you cancelled the trade they would go link dead. Put that one back in there, that was good times esp for the pvp server.

I'll drum up a few others, that should give the people who are proponents of the item recharge issue and keeping lifetaps broken a little bit of time to try and see if they can exploit some of the things listed.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 04:10 PM

Troll. Me and you keep going back and forth. If what you say is true then why did the Hoop get tampered with? If what you are stating is true: "It's very black and white."

Didn't you (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=457932&postcount=111) and I (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=457946&postcount=112) JUST address this.

YOU'RE the one trolling here because you're not getting the answer you're looking for so you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over.

Killing someone right when they log out so it leaves a corpse but they still successfully log out, when they come back in they will have all their gear and a corpse at their feet. That should definitely go back in.

Also, the goos in city of mist should be targettable from the ground, where you can see the sky bridge. I was able to pathing exploit those for a while.

There's a pathing exploit just outside the stone spider room in solb. Its the room with I believe 3 LDC spawns and a water fall of lava behind it that if you make it through goes to the fire giant ledge area. That was a grand pathing exploit.

Hopefully, there's the bards/guards/nobles in Highkeep bug where you can stand behind the fire pot in the room with the gambling looking tables, let's put that back in if it's not here.

There was a bug if you put a back pack in someone's trade window, if you cancelled the trade they would go link dead. Put that one back in there, that was good times esp for the pvp server.

I'll drum up a few others, that should give the people who are proponents of the item recharge issue and keeping lifetaps broken a little bit of time to try and see if they can exploit some of the things listed.

Wrong forum. Here (http://www.project1999.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6) is the right one for you. Also, I just skimmed over your list, and none of them seem to be related to item recharging.

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 04:12 PM

IMO change resist rate on hoop charge, fix necro/sk tap lines. Call it a day.

Nuggie

11-08-2011, 07:15 PM

IMO change resist rate on hoop charge, fix necro/sk tap lines. Call it a day.

Nothin else [edit - in this thread] matters to me. Other than going forward with the timeline to Velious(best expansion ever, why hold it up [edit - with nitpicking]?).

Come on peeps, let's help them(devs) get us to Velious by not occupying their time with less important matters.

Disclaimer - obviously all the above is my opinion. Carry on.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 07:33 PM

Exactly. See also:

This is a classic server, and class-based XP penalties were classic, therefore we have class-based XP penalties.

This is a classic server, and binding in the firepot room for a short duration was classic, therefore we were able to bind in the firepot room for a short duration.

This is a classic server, and manastones dropped for a period of time in classic, therefore we have X amount of manastones in game.

This is a classic server, and the moss-covered twig dropped for a period of time in classic, therefore we had the 3/10 moss-covered twig drop here for a while, too.

etc
etc
etc

If you make the case for one scenario of "fixed way before its time", then you make the case for everything else being fixed way before its time. Including class-based XP penalties. Alas, not part of the timeline yet.

I agree with everything you have said Yendor.

Please be open-minded when reading this response. There is one very large difference between all the things and items you have stated, others have stated, compared to Item recharging.

Using a vendor to recharge a charged item is a Bug. It's a broken Game mechanic.

Just look at how its done: You must have at least two ( 2 ) identical items. You have to make sure the vendor you sell to has room so said Item shows, then you MUST sell the item with full charges first, then sell the item with exhausted charges so they "stack" where the vendor will show two for sale on the same line. ( Items were stacked on vendors solely based on Item # until 2003 ) By being on the same line because they are "identical items" The second item sold is now a "copy" of the first item sold, which will revert the second item to full chargers.

If you do it in reverse, the item with exhausted charges first, then the one with full charges, the item with full charges will be a " copy " of the first item with no charges since they are "stacked" on the same sell line on the vendor, making both items have no charges.

If you want to recharge Lore items you need to have two characters doing this.

All of this is done on a public vendor, which can be bought by other people if you are not careful.

Anyone who says this was a feature put in the game, known and intended to be this way is in denial.

It took until 2003 for VI/Sony to be able to ( or find a way to ) code vendors to differentiate between Identical items with different charges. This is indeed why it's "classic"

The fact that it's classic does not change the fact that its a bug, a broken game mechantic being exploited.

There are plenty of examples of quest bugs giving too much exp, or plat, pathing bugs that caused mobs to not be able to hit you etc, etc that were not changed on Live until PoP, yet they do not exist here because they were unintentional BUGS. Eventually Identified by VI/Sony and removed.

Read this 187 page thread below and learn about all the things you CANNOT do on p99 that are CLASSIC.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw/35658-eq-cheaters-nostalgia-eq1s-greatest-exploits-rumors.html

Arguing that a bug is not " too game breaking " Is simple minded. Its a bug, its not supposed to be, no matter what said bug does.

Leaving this in will eventually lead to people finding other " questionable " things to do with recharged items, which will lead to more Dev time searching for these things and fixing them. Changeing it now will ensure this doesnt happen.

Hamahakki

11-08-2011, 07:40 PM

1) Item charging was classic.
2) Item charging was pretty much a mistake by the original devs.
3) Item charging isn't as game-breaking an exploit as Ivandyr's Hoop spam so it won't be changed on p99 even though the hoop was.

That's pretty much it. 1) and 2) aren't up for debate, 3) is a bit more of a gray area but that is how the p99 staff sees it and they have the only opinion which matters.

mokfarg

11-08-2011, 07:45 PM

Killing someone right when they log out so it leaves a corpse but they still successfully log out, when they come back in they will have all their gear and a corpse at their feet. That should definitely go back in.

Also, the goos in city of mist should be targettable from the ground, where you can see the sky bridge. I was able to pathing exploit those for a while.

There's a pathing exploit just outside the stone spider room in solb. Its the room with I believe 3 LDC spawns and a water fall of lava behind it that if you make it through goes to the fire giant ledge area. That was a grand pathing exploit.

Hopefully, there's the bards/guards/nobles in Highkeep bug where you can stand behind the fire pot in the room with the gambling looking tables, let's put that back in if it's not here.

There was a bug if you put a back pack in someone's trade window, if you cancelled the trade they would go link dead. Put that one back in there, that was good times esp for the pvp server.

I'll drum up a few others, that should give the people who are proponents of the item recharge issue and keeping lifetaps broken a little bit of time to try and see if they can exploit some of the things listed.

So people are duping items like this? I have seen strange behavior of individuals killing one player in Innothule Swamp before. I think they were doing this.

Werlop

11-08-2011, 07:51 PM

This is a game, not an exercise in Biblical interpretation. The hoops were removed because they broke the game balance, thereby making it less fun for everyone involved. It made raiding into a WoW-style exercise in easy, pointless tactics.

Most things are kept classic because classic was difficult and therefore fun; selective changes, such as removing exploits, are done to maximize the amount of enjoyment that players and staff may take from the server. The server staff minimize nonclassic changes partly out of respect for the original game and partly because a change that seems good may in fact lower the overall quality of the game. Yes, hybrid penalties sucked. But they were eventually removed, so no amount of crying will get the GM's to move the date of change up.

In this way, the reason that item recharging is left classic while hoops were nerfed is that recharging added interesting elements to the game and did not really become a problem until people started abusing a few items. Since the GM's here do not want to make the large-scale change of taking recharging out (which would mess with a lot of things, from puppet strings to binding melee in Plane of Mischief), they made the more limited change of altering the hoops themselves. The general lifetap nerf was overkill in my opinion, but factualy the GM's changed hoops to relieve a cause of headaches that was damaging a part of the server (the raiding scene). If anyone disagrees with this decision, then there is a better way to reach the server staff. It's called the Petitions / Exploit forum.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 07:57 PM

Nirgon

11-08-2011, 08:00 PM

Yeah it was done on purpose.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 08:03 PM

I would also like to address something that a few people have brought up.

Some people have also said that these charged items will still remain in game so breaking recharge will do nothing. I disagree. Having to farm these consumables will have a profound effect in how the items are used. Some will stop being used ( not worth the time to reaquire ), some will be used in very limited circumstances. Most people who do not know about item recharging will look at an item with 3 charges of root and call it " crap "

Take http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=3674 for example.

There are classes that use the root on this net every single day. They farm 11 of them leave a charged one in the bank, carry 10 around in a bag and use them liberally. Recharge them after a group breaks, or at the end of the day, rinse repeat forever. Once they put the initial time in to farm these nets, they never have to do it again. This is basically giving root to every single class that does not get root, with very little front end investment. This is overpowering, this is broken. Just because its not used to slay a raid target, does not mean its not game breaking.

This is just one example, Im sure there are more out there that the devs, nor I myself know about. I do not pretend to know them all, nor do I pretend to know the ones that will enter the game in velious.

Heebee

11-08-2011, 08:04 PM

Vulak definitely wasn't implemented during Velius. It was deemed too bugged to keep and then taken out.

Sorry, what? Could you possibly be any more wrong? Luclin was released December 4, 2001.
Vulak'Aerr died for the first time on Terris-Thule September 17, 2001, and earlier (by a number of months) on many other servers.

You're probably thinking of the 'Ring of Vulak' event, that came later (during Luclin).

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 08:15 PM

2 has never been proven, actually.

You are right, its a broken game mechanic they didnt even know about, and when they found out about it, they couldnt figure out how to fix it for a long time.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 08:19 PM

You're probably thinking of the 'Ring of Vulak' event, that came later (during Luclin).

Thank you for correcting my time line. i still get yesterday and tomorrow mixed up sometimes.

You are right, its a broken game mechanic they didnt even know about, and when they found out about it, they couldnt figure out how to fix it for a long time.

OR (and the more likely store because they left in for 4 years) it was in the game for some other reason (beta testing perhaps) and left in the game on release. they realised it wasn't that big of a deal and acceptable to them to leave in the game. they found a few cases where it was overpowered, and corrected those things. company gets bought out by SoE, CEO changes, a lot of other people change, and finally after 4 years, someone decided it had gone on long enough, and they fixed it with a relatively easy and logical fix.

done.

recharging is still classic.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 08:29 PM

What is your OPINION on Item recharging, to you think VI implimented it and intended it to work the way it does ?

I'm sorry, I got a business call when I was trying to respond.

A middle ground exists. Whether or not it was intended; it was classic. There are excellent examples of when it should be allowed and excellent examples of when it shouldn't, and as a result, I agree with the current implementation: allowing recharging of items and keep in line with the classic time line. If something is found to be game breaking (hoop) fix it. Leave everything else as is until it is planned to be changed, if it is to be changed at all. There's no reason to condemn the entire system because of a single flaw (that's been fixed).

Boy did you dance around this question!

I did not ask if it was classic.

I did not ask if it was game breaking.

I did not ask if you felt only severe examples should be changed.

I did not ask if you felt there was a reason to condem the entire system.

I asked, and I am asking once again. Do you believe ( you know, your personal opinion ) that in 1999 the devs who created everquest implimented and intended vendor recharging?

Samoht

11-08-2011, 08:30 PM

Didn't I just answer that?!!

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 08:35 PM

Didn't I just answer that?!!

Actually you kinda sorta did

The fact that I started my post at 6:16 had to take a crap ( you posted at 6:19 ) and I came back and finished my post at 6:29 might have been missed by you however.

I would still like a yes or no from you, with my question quoted in the post.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 08:53 PM

OR (and the more likely store because they left in for 4 years) it was in the game for some other reason (beta testing perhaps) and left in the game on release. they realised it wasn't that big of a deal and acceptable to them to leave in the game. they found a few cases where it was overpowered, and corrected those things. company gets bought out by SoE, CEO changes, a lot of other people change, and finally after 4 years, someone decided it had gone on long enough, and they fixed it with a relatively easy and logical fix.

done.

recharging is still classic.

lolerskates

You are reaching.

There are much easier ways of beta testing items... like GM testers just simply summoning said item. If you wanted regulare beta testers to have access to items to test, why not just add a vendor with unlimited supply of the items with a cost value of "0" Wouldnt take but a few minutes.

But by your " the more likley story" They intentinally broke vendors to recharge charged items, told the testers :

"Ok guys and gals if you want to test root 100 times from this spider net with 3 charges this is what you need to do... Farm two of the exact same item you want to test, use the charges on one and not the other.

Then sell the one that still has the charges FIRST, then you sell the one with zero charges to the vendor, and then buy them both back and both items will have charges and you can go test root some more.

Oh and make sure you do it this exact way because if you do it backwards, they will both have ZERO charges.

Oh and I forgot to mention if the item you want recharged is lore, you gotta get a nother tester involed who has that same item.

Oh and did I mention that the vendor must be empty of all but their normal sold items or the items you want recharged will not be for sale? kk yall got that... heh derp"

And then they forgot to "un-break" the vendors , release the game, then say ... meh whatever, then 4 years later Smedley said, hey wait a minute I broke these vendors 4 years ago for testing purposes and forgot to change them back then remembered.. but then brad wouldnt let me fix it... lets DOO EET now that im in charge .. weeee!

yeah this is FAR more likely than this simply being a bug

Samoht

11-08-2011, 08:56 PM

yeah this is FAR more likely than this simply being a bug

You've never proven it was, shrug. All I have to do is prove it was in game for it to be considered classic, so the onus is still on you. ESPECIALLY since the fix was SO EASY.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 09:06 PM

ESPECIALLY since the fix was SO EASY.

I never said the fix to vendor recharging was easy.

I said creating a vendor with unlimited free copies of said item to be purchased and beta tested was easy.

Do you even know whats going on here anymore? lol

Samoht

11-08-2011, 09:09 PM

I never said the fix to vendor recharging was easy.

It was VERY easy, though. You're taking it for sarcasm when it's not. They gave separate database IDs for each amount of charges. I have no idea how they were keeping track of charges before, and apparently, neither did venders.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 09:11 PM

Im done for the day, I came on to post a few poignant responses to yendor and few others and here I go getting trolled again.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 09:20 PM

It was VERY easy, though. You're taking it for sarcasm when it's not. They gave separate database IDs for each amount of charges. I have no idea how they were keeping track of charges before, and apparently, neither did venders.

Oh im sure it was very easy once they were able to do it. Whether it was a coding issue not allowing them to, or memory restrictions preventing them to do it, I cannot say, Nor can you really.

To answer the second part, its simple.. they werent keeping track. They intended items with charges to be used once ( or for how many charges ) and then that was it. Go farm another.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 09:23 PM

Im done for the day, I came on to post a few poignant responses to yendor and few others and here I go getting trolled again.

Apparently (easily) defeating someone in a debate on a discussion board qualifies you as a troll now :(

They intended items with charges to be used once ( or for how many charges ) and then that was it. Go farm another.

Sorry, insignificant proof.

mokfarg

11-08-2011, 09:33 PM

Sorry, insignificant proof.

Would the items not be unlimited use if this was the intention? I think they should be rechargeable just because they are classic like that but I think you are wrong.

That is why they have the charges in the first place so they are not unlimited and probably didn't realize they would be sold and bought back like that as they didn't realize people would kite.

Hamahakki

11-08-2011, 10:09 PM

The way items recharged in classic WAS A BUG.

In a world where different item instances with the same ID are identical, merchants can keep track of their inventories with just IDs.

In Everquest, items are ALMOST identical. There is no item durability, enchantment, augmentation, or other mechanics which can differentiate one Shield of the Slain Unicorn from another. The only exception is charged items. Either charged items were added after merchants and the merchant code was never updated, or the merchant code was broken when it was written.

For better or worse, Everquest went live with a ton of bugs. Those unintended features were part of what made the game appealing for many of us.

Item recharging was classic, so one of the following is true:
A) Item recharging through merchants was one of the hundreds of unintentional features in EQ1.
OR
B) They wanted items to be rechargeable AND the way they wanted players to recharge them was by having multiple copies of the item, one of which was charged, and the rest of which were not charged, then to find a merchant which has room for player-sold items, then sell the charged item to the vendor, then sell all the uncharged items to the vendor, then buy back all of the items, and if another player buys it while you are using the vendor then they now own your items, and if you want to recharge multiple lore items you need one character per item you are trying to recharge, plus one to hold the charged version.

Obviously, A) is true. People arguing for B) (i.e. Samoht) are either trolling or really, really stupid.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 10:17 PM

Obviously, A) is true. People arguing for B) (i.e. Samoht) are either trolling or really, really stupid.

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it and you would have proof!

You have no proof. I can prove that recharging was classic.

Calling people names doesn't make you any more wrong or right, whatever the case may be.

Hamahakki

11-08-2011, 10:22 PM

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it or you would have proof!

It could be unintentional and still not get fixed for 4 years if they didn't think it was a big enough deal to warrant fixing.

To say something is wrong just because there is "no proof" makes no sense. I believe you are a human being with two eyes and a mouth. I don't have proof, but I am still correct.

There is not going to be any "proof" for A) OR B), but A) makes sense and B) is ridiculous.

Samoht

11-08-2011, 10:26 PM

It could be unintentional and still not get fixed for 4 years if they didn't think it was a big enough deal to warrant fixing.

... and it still isn't, now! Discussion over!

Hamahakki

11-08-2011, 10:31 PM

Item recharging is classic and should stay, I didn't say otherwise. But it was a bug in classic and that anyone thinks it was intentional is mind-boggling.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 10:37 PM

Obviously you're wrong about A) being true or it wouldn't have taken them 4 years to fix it and you would have proof!.

So because they took 4 years to get it fixed means its a fact it wasnt an unintentinal bug.

You take the cake my friend.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 10:45 PM

Ok check this out. This is in no way proof at all btw.

This is a quote from the safehouse forums in 2003 talking about the recharge nerf.

"It's still a fix if they had come out and plainly stated that it was an exploit, which they did. The fact it took them this long to actually code a fix doesn't justify it's use. They said it was wrong plain and simple.

They came out and said that plain as day over 2 years ago, so if you were still using it, then you were knowingly exploiting it. It would make you in fact a cheater, not someone using a 'feature'."

In this thread people asked him for the quote from SoE that said it was a bug or exploit, he never made another post after this ( which means nothing ) Either he is right, or wrong who knows.

We need people to search google, etc and see if they can find anything showing SoE or VI saying its a bug and not intended. Im searching myself as well.

Not that something like this needs a quote from sony, its pretty obvious to anyone thats NOT Samoht =)

Its an unintended BUG

YendorLootmonkey

11-08-2011, 10:52 PM

It's a broken Game mechanic..

So were the class-based XP penalties. The relative class balances did not pan out as designed to warrant the penalties, therefore class balance in relation to XP penalties was broken as a game mechanic.

Again, if you are saying that item recharging must be a design bug because it was fixed later, then class-based penalties is also a design bug since it was fixed later.

Brinkman

11-08-2011, 11:27 PM

So were the class-based XP penalties. The relative class balances did not pan out as designed to warrant the penalties, therefore class balance in relation to XP penalties was broken as a game mechanic.

Again, if you are saying that item recharging must be a design bug because it was fixed later, then class-based penalties is also a design bug since it was fixed later.

I never said it was a design bug, do you not see how you are trying to twist what im saying around to fit better into what you are trying to compare?

I said it was a game mechanic bug ( a coding bug )

The class exp penalty design was not a bug nor was it broken. The coding was proper and how they intended it to be at the time, they even said this.

"When EverQuest player characters were being designed, it was immediately apparent that some races and classes would be more powerful than others given versatility and other factors."

The realative class balances they are talking about are all the spells, changes to spell and song functions, items and so on over 3 years of updates, leading to this conclusion in 2001. Its all timeline proper, and INTENDED.

I never said it must have been a bug because they fixed it later, i said it was a bug because its obvious it was a bug and they were not ABLE to fix it until later.

Yendor let your failed exp thing go man. And im getting hijacking feelings coming on, so please resurect your old post or what have you.

It's completely different that a coding bug creating exploits.

Many coding bug exploits were very much classic ( like quests giving too much exp, too much plat ) yet not fixed until well into PoP. Yet these bugs do not exist here on p99 Because they are BUGS.

This bug should be one of those removed, as it is similar in fuction.

Sarkhan

11-08-2011, 11:58 PM

Yes it is obvious that they notice/knew about recharging items and its ability to be exploited and that is why they adjusted/upped the buyback cost of certain items - yet they never made the items buyback 9999999, instead they left many of them around 10k-ish for example.

Unless i am wrong and the price-hike of buybacks didn't happen until after classic-velious era, my vote would be to keep in recharging since it was addressed but never "fixed" in the sense that they made it not rechargeable/99999+ buyback. Having said that i would still hike up the buyback cost of many items to much higher than live had, to accommodate the P99 economy.

A little off topic here but as for experience penalties, whether or not they were deemed not needed and removed later on in the game, it is still of my opinion that this server is to recreate the nostalgia of the classic experience - particularly all of the pain in the ass that EQ was and penalties should stay in.

Pretty sure (though i could be entirely wrong) the idea came from old D&D of hybrids having penalties for the ability of doing things from 2 different classes... Maybe it didn't quite work out in theory though (especially for the ranger's case, haha)

Samoht

11-09-2011, 12:00 AM

In this thread people asked him for the quote from SoE that said it was a bug or exploit

It wasn't any more wrong eight years ago than it is today. If it was ever announced to be a bug or exploit, you should cite that as proof instead of just assuming it's there.

Let's play this game your way from now on: It's against common sense to take out item recharging on this server since it was clearly classic. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't have any common sense.

We can play it Hamahakki (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=458902&postcount=178)'s way, too: Anybody who thinks unclassic changes need to be applied to this server is just trolling and stupid, really stupid.

Sarkhan

11-09-2011, 12:05 AM

dammit samoht, you posted 2 mins after me now people will only see your recent post and never read mine! :-P
hehe

YendorLootmonkey

11-09-2011, 12:57 AM

I never said it was a design bug, do you not see how you are trying to twist what im saying around to fit better into what you are trying to compare?

But it IS a design bug.

The data structures for items were not designed to have different IDs or attributes based on the amount of charges the item had. Therefore, when the item was placed into the vendor data structure, they designed it to increment the current quantity of the original item instead of creating separate items on the vendor, each with a different amount of charges.

Or, the class-based XP penalty was a coding bug:

The classes were coded to have different strengths and weaknesses based on the particular max skill values and different abilities and spells coded into the game. The balance of power that would require the class penalties never materialized, therefore it was fixed.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The point is still -- if you fix one thing before its time, you set the precedent of fixing other things before their time. I don't care whether class-based XP penalties are corrected now or in Velious, I'm 2 yellows away from 60, so I did my time already.

john_savage1982

11-09-2011, 01:33 AM

I believe yall are using designed in a different context. In the coding of the game, the programmers designed their data structures in a way that allowed for the recharging exploit. In other words, the programmers did a poor job in designing the data structures to execute the design they intended for the game. As a result, we have the recharging exploit.

But it IS a design bug.

The data structures for items were not designed to have different IDs or attributes based on the amount of charges the item had. Therefore, when the item was placed into the vendor data structure, they designed it to increment the current quantity of the original item instead of creating separate items on the vendor, each with a different amount of charges.

Or, the class-based XP penalty was a coding bug:

The classes were coded to have different strengths and weaknesses based on the particular max skill values and different abilities and spells coded into the game. The balance of power that would require the class penalties never materialized, therefore it was fixed.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The point is still -- if you fix one thing before its time, you set the precedent of fixing other things before their time. I don't care whether class-based XP penalties are corrected now or in Velious, I'm 2 yellows away from 60, so I did my time already.

john_savage1982

11-09-2011, 01:38 AM

There are so many instances of classic features purposely removed for the sake of balance. The devs are already picking and choosing which features contribute to the classic experience and which are too OP to allow. Any argument about keeping things classic forgets this fact.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 01:49 AM

"if you fix one thing before its time, you set the precedent of fixing other things before their time"

So you are saying they should have left in bugs that allowed you to lvl insanely fast and to make crazy plat sitting in a town?

This is the same type of bug.

You trying to compare and even latch on exp penalties to these above things is a joke, and an insult.

I suppose even a child could push a square toy through a circle hole. That doesnt make the square a circle.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 01:51 AM

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=3655

Yeah having 10 of these, creating what is basically 10 group complete heals is ok.

Might be hard to get, but once you get them its always there with charges ( broken )

Bug

Exploit.

YendorLootmonkey

11-09-2011, 01:53 AM

So you are saying they should have left in bugs that allowed you to lvl insanely fast and to make crazy plat sitting in a town?

This is the same type of bug.

You saying something is the same type of bug does not make it true.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 02:03 AM

You saying something is the same type of bug does not make it true.

You are right, thats why I have stated many , many, times, its my opinion man.

It is also my opinon, that most people without some sort of vested interest ( whatever that may be ) Are seeing the obvious.

Which is that the way vendor recharging works does not make sense, nobody would have ever implimented it that way on purpose, and in many cases, as I continue to provide links, it can create balance problems in the game.

My intent was not to anger anyone, it was to bring a glaring problem to everyones attention. Especially to those that didnt know about it, or havnt thought enough about it.

Samoht

11-09-2011, 02:19 AM

as I continue to provide links

Wait a minute. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that actually backs you up. What links? You're just outright lying now.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 02:56 AM

You are right, thats why I have stated many , many, times, its my opinon man.

It is also my opinon, that most people without some sort of vested interest ( whatever that may be ) Are seeing the obvious.

Which is that the way vendor recharging works does not make sense, nobody would have ever implimented it that way on purpose, and in many cases, as I continue to provide links, it can create balance problems in the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinkman
as I continue to provide links.

Wait a minute. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that actually backs you up. What links? You're just outright lying now.

Ok what is wrong with you man, did you fail reading comprehension? Did you score A++ in your intentional quoting out of context troll class?

You are calling me a liar and I am really wanting to start using name insults that mean not bright, but I wont fall for it.

When taken in FULL context, its pretty apparent that Im reffering to my very recent post # 194 about The prayers of life being able to be recharged being a balance issue.

Same with my link the the spider net with root charges.

Are you seriously that involved in some kind of internet game of proving someone wrong that you cant even read things and take it in and understand it.

I really appreciate being called a liar by some ignorant forum troll, makes my day.

Go ahead, find something else to quote out of context, im done playing your games.

Samoht

11-09-2011, 03:07 AM

No, taken in full context, it's obvious that you mean you provided proof for something. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't have any common sense. In reality, all you did was provide a link to a random item on Allakhazam that has charges. Anybody who disagrees is either a troll or really, really stupid. Basically, what you're saying is you found something that's uber rare and would be really ultra expensive to recharge. I would love to go so far as to call someone that does that a moron, but I'll refrain for now.

Man, posting like you is fun! The passive aggressiveness just seeps through my keyboard.

M.Bison

11-09-2011, 03:11 AM

Maybe if u find an item that would actually break the game because it can be recharged i would agree. until then im gonna disagree and say you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

btw spamming prayers of life is just going to kill your clerics in any raid, way too much threat to be viable.

Samoht

11-09-2011, 03:22 AM

That's the point. He doesn't have a single thing that proves his stance. There's a lot of speculation and what-if scenarios, but zero documentation or proof of anything being exploited. He has links! There's links to a lot of different shit on Allakhazam. So what? Nothing has been substantial enough to back him up.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 03:27 AM

Maybe if u find an item that would actually break the game because it can be recharged i would agree. until then im gonna disagree and say you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=1933 I guess you want something else as big or bigger. Or that hasn't been addressed ( tho it can stil be recharged , yes for a high price, but it can ) Ive already said I dont claim to know them all, im sure you dont either.. thats half the problem friend. The people abusing these things are not exactly sending tells to gms explaining it.

btw spamming prayers of life is just going to kill your clerics in any raid, way too much threat to be viable.

I wonder what would happen if your tank spams it instead...

M.Bison

11-09-2011, 03:40 AM

The people abusing these things are not exactly sending tells to gms explaining it.
Lol who are these people? If this is as big as of a problem as you make it out to be, it would be very apparent by now.

As far as the tank spamming prayers clicks. it would work a little better, but its just not as efficient as clicking a midnight mallet for threat. A few clerics w/ complete heal and the resists to resist dragon roar should be able to heal anything in the game atm. Plus u dont even need to recharge a mallet u can just do the quest again.

skorge

11-09-2011, 07:22 AM

Samoht, how do you feel about the spellbook here? In classic your only option was to stare at your spellbook until you hit level 30. This was classic EQ. This feature defined the game for casters/priests. Why is this feature not in P99? Is it game-breaking...oh wait, it's actually the opposite, this non-feature has affected P99 like no other. What am I saying?

No starring at spellbook > fixing rechargeable items. Surely if one of the most defined features in the game has been removed from P99, they can make a small adjustment and fix rechargeable items.

Samoht

11-09-2011, 10:12 AM

Surely if one of the most defined features in the game has been removed from P99

You don't know how this works, do you? Do you know how to force a client to use a certain UI? Yeah? Join the dev team then and help them to implement it. They did NOT remove the classic UI. Their chosen version of the game (Titanium) had the Luclin UI (among other things like target rings and maps in starting cities - both of which have been removed). There have been requests to force the classic UI and spell book mediating, but the problem is that both will eventually be disabled on P99, so it's hard to allocate development time to that.

So to correct you: they did NOT remove the classic UI and spell book mediating from the game.

Glitch

11-09-2011, 12:08 PM

I like this thread because I can almost feel the tears welling up in OP's eyes every time an item is recharged.

pickled_heretic

11-09-2011, 12:09 PM

I like this thread because I can almost feel the tears welling up in OP's eyes every time an item is recharged.

http://www.jasonrivera.com/images/articles/20101125_2_840/cryingindian.jpg

Waffen

11-09-2011, 12:23 PM

http://www.jasonrivera.com/images/articles/20101125_2_840/cryingindian.jpg

y u post pics of facials and not tag NSFW? just got me in trouble at the office, bro.

Atmas

11-09-2011, 12:38 PM

It amazes me that anyone could think recharging isn't an unintentional exploit. If Devs didnt fix it for a while just means that it wasn't high on their list due to difficulty to fix and player knowledge of it. If people had been knocking down Trakanon by spamming earrings back in the day it would have been addressed then.

Also the class XP penalties were obviously a bad idea but intended design. They have nothing to do with recharing. The XP penalties required extra coding to work where as recharging was possible due to a lack of coding.

Rushmore

11-09-2011, 12:42 PM

Recharging items is a bad idea on a PVP server!!!!!!!!!! Please do something about this!

YendorLootmonkey

11-09-2011, 01:18 PM

If Devs didnt fix it for a while just means that it wasn't high on their list due to difficulty to fix and player knowledge of it.

Speculation.

If people had been knocking down Trakanon by spamming earrings back in the day it would have been addressed then.

You're right. Also:

Moss-covered twig in the primary hand - addressed back in the day, within several months after enough entered the game.

Binding in firepots - addressed back in the day, within two weeks.

Item recharging - not addressed for YEARS when the simple fix was to make the buyback costs billions of platinum, until presumably rechargeable items entering the game that could be recharged in this fashion in later expansions were truly OP, THEN addressed.

Follow the classic timeline, unless it's an exploit. No one here has proven rechargeable items is an exploit -- it is just people's opinions. It was an acceptable mechanic in classic. You don't think Verant had logs as to what was going on with every transaction on every vendor in the game? Pretty sure they knew what was going down. In fact, it was probably a Verant developer who knew how the data structures worked that was the first one to teach everyone in his play guild how to recharge items.

Palemoon

11-09-2011, 01:31 PM

I would kind of like recharging to go away. The game dosent have item decay, items with charges should at least decay.

pickled_heretic

11-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Speculation.

You're right. Also:

Moss-covered twig in the primary hand - addressed back in the day, within several months after enough entered the game.

Binding in firepots - addressed back in the day, within two weeks.

Item recharging - not addressed for YEARS when the simple fix was to make the buyback costs billions of platinum, until presumably rechargeable items entering the game that could be recharged in this fashion in later expansions were truly OP, THEN addressed.

Follow the classic timeline, unless it's an exploit. No one here has proven rechargeable items is an exploit -- it is just people's opinions. It was an acceptable mechanic in classic. You don't think Verant had logs as to what was going on with every transaction on every vendor in the game? Pretty sure they knew what was going down. In fact, it was probably a Verant developer who knew how the data structures worked that was the first one to teach everyone in his play guild how to recharge items.

gms helped people recharge their items with vendors in botb, for what it's worth. if it were an exploit it would definitely not be something gms would assist you with.

skorge

11-09-2011, 01:43 PM

hehe can't wait for the pvp server...item recharging = winning there; everyone knows about it now; well see how much of a rant this topic will really create then, and oh yea, if it gets nerfed there (red), its gotta get nerfed here (blue)

guineapig

11-09-2011, 02:09 PM

Take your arguments about word usage to a private forum and let's keep this topic on topic.

Nuggie

11-09-2011, 03:02 PM

Ok, to recap:

Brink hates recharging. can't provide evidence of anyone doing it in a way that breaks the game(other than hoop, which is fixed). He only state his opinions on what *could* happen.

Samoht started off the thread by giving helpful tips on how to make a cohesive argument in such a way that might show devs the need to make a change. He insisted it isn't worth dev time currently.

They went back and forth for about 15 pages with the same stuff.

End recap.

Brinkman

11-09-2011, 03:42 PM

Item recharging - not addressed for YEARS when the simple fix was to make the buyback costs billions of platinum, until presumably rechargeable items entering the game that could be recharged in this fashion in later expansions were truly OP, THEN addressed.

Everyone is jumping on me for assuming things, but many of you are coming back saying it was simple to fix and they just didnt do it, yet you have no proof in that direction either.

Nobody really knows what happened behind closed doors at VI or SoE. Its going to be extremely hard to find any documentation either way. All parties here are speculatiing.

For all we know, they truely didnt have a fix untill october 2003. And the reason for not maxing the recharge cost could have been many things, maybe they decided to make it a temporary plat sync, using one bug to cancel out other bugs ( that procuded too much plat ). Until they found said fix.

We could speculate forever as we most likely will never get any real facts about it.

What , in my opinion should be obvious, is that the mechanic itself was not put in intentionally. Its a bug, ite gives players the ability to do things in a manner they did not intend. Again my opinon, which I feel anyone with an open mind should see. It doesnt have to be game breaking to be wrong. I think ive said all this before. Suppose some are just not reading, or are and ignoring half of it.

Nirgon

11-09-2011, 03:52 PM

First when an item is sold to a vendor, there has to be code to compare it to the list of current items and update the quantity. When the two items match, check if item has charges. If it is an item with charges, and the amount of charges do not match, add it to the vendor separately. Hell just do it for the hoop if it's such a big deal. I'm just here to say life taps need to be fixed.

Create spell Drain Spirit (different spell ID, same name) put your resist mod on it, assign to hoop, revert changes to life taps. Dones. Necro and SK are fixed/classic/not further gimped on raids.

Samoht

11-09-2011, 04:01 PM

Everyone is jumping on me for assuming things, but many of you are coming back saying it was simple to fix and they just didnt do it, yet you have no proof in that direction either.

We do have a time frame of four years where recharging was available, though, so strike through the they just didnt do it part because they just didn't do it for four years. That's proof. Maybe they didn't think of the database fix immediately or maybe it took a lot of back end coding to update, either way, it's not my place to speculate.

Nobody really knows what happened behind closed doors at VI or SoE. Its going to be extremely hard to find any documentation either way.

It's funny how this argument suits you when you want it to, but then you say things like this:

What , in my opinion should be obvious, is that the mechanic itself was not put in intentionally. Its a bug, ite gives players the ability to do things in a manner they did not intend. Again my opinon, which I feel anyone with an open mind should see. It doesnt have to be game breaking to be wrong. I think ive said all this before. Suppose some are just not reading, or are and ignoring half of it.

Please allow me to quote you on this:

Nobody really knows what happened behind closed doors at VI or SoE.

Moving on:

All parties here are speculatiing.

No, you're the only one speculating. I've refused more than once to do so, and then name calling ensues until I do.

For all we know, they truely didnt have a fix untill october 2003.

Agreed.

And the reason for not maxing the recharge cost could have been many things, maybe they decided to make it a temporary plat sync, using one bug to cancel out other bugs ( that procuded too much plat ). Until they found said fix.

They didn't do that, though. They did it for items that were deemed OP to be recharged, and didn't change anything else, unless you have proof of them changing the buyback amount on everything with charges, but that will be nearly impossible to prove.

We could speculate forever as we most likely will never get any real facts about it.

Well then we should stop debating it. Nobody has any real facts about why item recharging should be disabled. We do have facts that it was classic, though, and this is a classic server.

First when an item is sold to a vendor, there has to be code to compare it to the list of current items and update the quantity. When the two items match, check if item has charges. If it is an item with charges, and the amount of charges do not match, add it to the vendor separately. Hell just do it for the hoop if it's such a big deal. I'm just here to say life taps need to be fixed.

It's easier than that, though. Check items, check charges, vender separately. Too much unnecessary code. If the items have different database IDs for each amount of charges, it becomes no different from selling large patchwork gloves and small patchwork gloves. Six dose hoop would have the same name but different DBID from zero dose hoop, and the vender would realize it would be listed separately with no additional checks required.

Create spell Drain Spirit (different spell ID, same name) put your resist mod on it, assign to hoop, revert changes to life taps. Dones. Necro and SK are fixed/classic/not further gimped on raids.

I thought this was about recharging? Clearly off-topic and has no place in this discussion.

Glitch

11-09-2011, 04:24 PM

ite gives players the ability to do things in a manner they did not intend.

Ite ite ite

Also, this case has been brought up before regarding Feign Death. FD was put in the game to cancel aggro in order to prevent yourself from otherwise being killed. The whole concept of using FD to split and tag mobs (to do stuff like trivialize entire mob encounters) can be considered an exploit of game mechanics.

Doing something other than the devs originally intended isn't necessarily wrong.

Also get over it.

Nirgon

11-09-2011, 05:50 PM

I thought this was about recharging? Clearly off-topic and has no place in this discussion.

Clearly related to a proposed solution for the current situation. That high horse is riding pretty low for you in this thread sir. Maybe I should stick to blowing smoke.

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 06:57 PM

gms helped people recharge their items with vendors in botb, for what it's worth. if it were an exploit it would definitely not be something gms would assist you with.

Ive seen this posted twice. It might have happened, not seeing anything backing it however. Even if they did tho, we dont know why that descison would have been made. It could have possibally been a last minute decision attempting to make each fight equal. Insta click charges was a big deal in that tourney. They nerfed the soulfire click after it, and a lot of others things that came to their attention that didnt seem right.

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinkman
And the reason for not maxing the recharge cost could have been many things, maybe they decided to make it a temporary plat sync, using one bug to cancel out other bugs ( that procuded too much plat ). Until they found said fix.

They didn't do that, though. They did it for items that were deemed OP to be recharged, and didn't change anything else

You are stating something as a fact when you get on me about it all the time. Please provide proof that SoE deemed ALL the items that had their buy back price increased were OP.

Samoht

11-10-2011, 07:33 PM

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 08:10 PM

So here is my recap:

The opinions:

In my personal opinion, using common sense, that vendor recharging was not intentionally put in the the game. To me, the way its done just screams bug/exploit.

I feel that VI/SoE didnt have a fix for this, either in coding restrictions, or memory restrictions ( remember this code was written in 1997/1998).

I feel that leaving vendor recharging on P99 will be a detriment to the server. I feel it will lead to more people taking advantage of potential exploits. Leading to more dev time investigating, debating and fixing not yet forseen problems in the future. A broad 1 time sweep of this problem will solve future occurences.

I feel there should be no difference in trivializing content with an exploit, or by any other means, whether it makes killing a raid target trivial or killing an orc pawn trivial or anything inbetween. Its still an exploit, or something not intended.

I feel the balance of these charged items are broken with vendor recharging, they offer longterm rewards for minimal investment, and almost no reinvestment. They are able to be used liberally because they can be recharged, which changes how they are used. I.E. emergency situations vs everyday usage of abilities not normally granted to certain classes.

The Facts:

Vendor recharging items is a classic function, it was not removed until October 9, 2003.

I have never claimed it wasnt classic.

Many Classic functions have been removed from p99 in the past for many reasons. Some of which fall under Bugs/exploits that VI/Soe fixed well after luclin release, and some that VI/SoE never fixed.

Changing this function will have a major impact on the game, both positive and negative.

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 08:14 PM

Sure, let me just find one of your posts talking about the price change on the rez stick...

While we're waiting, were you able to prove that they raised the price on every rechargeable item? Let's see who takes longer!

I dont have to prove that, as I never stated that they raised the prices on all rechareable items. I simply said maybe they raised the prices to create a plat sync. YOU are the one assuming and insisting that in order for that to be true, all rechargeable items would have had their prices changed. You need to read entire posts.

Here read it again

For all we know, they truely didnt have a fix untill october 2003. And the reason for not maxing the recharge cost could have been many things, maybe they decided to make it a temporary plat sync, using one bug to cancel out other bugs ( that procuded too much plat ). Until they found said fix.

Samoht

11-10-2011, 08:15 PM

Its still an exploit, or something not intended.

Looks like you missed an "in my opinion"

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 08:27 PM

Looks like you missed an "in my opinion"

You gotta be kidding me. That paragraph started with "I feel", and it is under " the opinions " section of my recap.

The opinions:

I feel there should be no difference in trivializing content with an exploit, or by any other means, whether it makes killing a raid target trivial or killing an orc pawn trivial or anything inbetween. Its still an exploit, or something not intended.

Talk about taking quoting out of context to the extreme.

looks like you "missed" half my post.

Brinkman

11-10-2011, 09:49 PM

Lol who are these people? If this is as big as of a problem as you make it out to be, it would be very apparent by now.

As far as the tank spamming prayers clicks. it would work a little better, but its just not as efficient as clicking a midnight mallet for threat. A few clerics w/ complete heal and the resists to resist dragon roar should be able to heal anything in the game atm. Plus u dont even need to recharge a mallet u can just do the quest again.

Honestly, I dont know if its all that apparent now. Thats why I posted this.

There are many charged items that , when looked at on their own seem to not be that big of a deal, but when you combine them with others, or/and amongst are large amount of people. It has the opportunity to possibally make content trivial. One item by itself has been proven this to be true.

What about multiple people, holding multiple clicks. Imagine a raid where all the tanks have snap and nearly permanent agro with mallet and root clicks( root obviously only on immune mobs).

Each group having a person ( preferabally an offtank or tank ) with the ability to complete heal the entire group on call with no mana cost. ( prayers of life ). All damage casters having insta Burst Dps from their Plane and phinny clicks wands Wand of ice, Wand of Conflageration for wiz. Wand of souls for necro, wand of swords mage.

Any player able to charm a mob up to lvl 51 with puppet strings. Maybe not VP but other raids, or even solo.

Multiple people with bladestopper Rune 4 click ( 10 charges ). Agro, basically heals...

This is a just a small sample of what people could have, I am sure I am missing many charged items that would make this even more insane.

The fact these items exist isnt the problem. The fact that once all these items are obtained for the first time, there is almost no secondary investment needed to re-gain the charges. Making the once "hard" decision to use them a non-factor.

Im not saying anyone IS doing this, but its possible. And imo it shouldnt be. replacing strategy, and skillful playing with easymode clicks is not only lame, it makes the entire game trvial. This isnt about taking away one persons fun click roots.

M.Bison

11-10-2011, 11:07 PM

Honestly, I dont know if its all that apparent now. Thats why I posted this.

There are many charged items that , when looked at on their own seem to not be that big of a deal, but when you combine them with others, or/and amongst are large amount of people. It has the opportunity to possibally make content trivial. One item by itself has been proven this to be true.

What about multiple people, holding multiple clicks. Imagine a raid where all the tanks have snap and nearly permanent agro with mallet and root clicks( root obviously only on immune mobs).

Each group having a person ( preferabally an offtank or tank ) with the ability to complete heal the entire group on call with no mana cost. ( prayers of life ). All damage casters having insta Burst Dps from their Plane and phinny clicks wands Wand of ice, Wand of Conflageration for wiz. Wand of souls for necro, wand of swords mage.

Any player able to charm a mob up to lvl 51 with puppet strings. Maybe not VP but other raids, or even solo.

Multiple people with bladestopper Rune 4 click ( 10 charges ). Agro, basically heals...

This is a just a small sample of what people could have, I am sure I am missing many charged items that would make this even more insane.

The fact these items exist isnt the problem. The fact that once all these items are obtained for the first time, there is almost no secondary investment needed to re-gain the charges. Making the once "hard" decision to use them a non-factor.

Im not saying anyone IS doing this, but its possible. And imo it shouldnt be. replacing strategy, and skillful playing with easymode clicks is not only lame, it makes the entire game trvial. This isnt about taking away one persons fun click roots.

What you just described here is more complicated than just raiding normally. Have u even seen end-game content here? There would be no point in using all those clickies, its just easier to be good at the game and use your spells. Good tanks dont get agro snatched from them, good clerics dont let ppl die without using any clicks. Good dps can do their dmg using their mana and not die(goes back to tanks keeping agro.) All the things you describe make me think you have zero experience in a raid scenario.

Guilds dont raid the way they do because its "the way it ought to be." we raid that way because its the most efficient way. Using all those click items like u suggested is just dumb.

Crazerous

11-11-2011, 12:22 AM

the recharging is an exploit however i only want it fixed because i plan on playing on the red99 server. Recharging might not be a problem on blue server but however it IS a problem on red.

M.Bison

11-11-2011, 12:57 AM

It's the way classic pvp was back in '99 and its the way pvp will be in '11.
http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/DealWithIt/_Deal_with_it_dog.gif

Szeth

11-11-2011, 09:44 AM

the recharging is an exploit however i only want it fixed because i plan on playing on the red99 server. Recharging might not be a problem on blue server but however it IS a problem on red.

You can't recharge items too?

Rusl

11-11-2011, 09:59 AM

The only clicky you've listed that I can somewhat agree with being game changing is a midnight mallet. However, very few people actually recharge it as its cheaper (most of the time) to just do the quest again. So even if item recharging was changed people would still farm this quest and have their mallet anyway.

Nirgon

11-11-2011, 01:08 PM

Does anyone in here arguing the case being "for" item recharging also think necro/sk taps and lifetap weapon procs need to be fixed? Samoht etc?

Lovely

11-11-2011, 03:08 PM

What makes me laugh is all the hypocrites on these forums. You got all these people who argue how everything should be left classic and that the spell system should be classic on red99. Then in this this and other threads about recharging they spam that it should be nerfed/changed or whatever. Pathetic..

Rallyd

11-11-2011, 03:19 PM

Lovely

11-11-2011, 03:32 PM

The expensive form of recharging i don't think will become a problem for years, however the exploit form of recharging, IE handing an item to an NPC that doesn't want it for quest, and him giving it back recharged. That needs to be fixed, because that is definitely *NOT CLASSIC*.

This is true, but other then that recharging should be left as it's always been.

However if there are some items that get abused and influence the game to strongly like the Invandyr's Hoop did then there definitely should be nerfs to those items only.

Samoht

11-11-2011, 04:36 PM

Does anyone in here arguing the case being "for" item recharging also think necro/sk taps and lifetap weapon procs need to be fixed? Samoht etc?

I really think you need to create your own thread to complain about them fixing life taps instead of insisting on piggy-backing your issue on the recharge thread. They're unrelated.

The expensive form of recharging i don't think will become a problem for years, however the exploit form of recharging, IE handing an item to an NPC that doesn't want it for quest, and him giving it back recharged. That needs to be fixed, because that is definitely *NOT CLASSIC*.

I read that in the R99 thread (http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53945) about things to fix. The guy who reported it did not specify whether or not he did a bug report on it. It's irresponsible if he didn't, but some people would rather complain about things rather than take the time to present a proper case on fixing them. I'm not finding the post right now and don't have the time or a reason to keep looking.

Brinkman

11-11-2011, 07:55 PM

What you just described here is more complicated than just raiding normally. Have u even seen end-game content here? There would be no point in using all those clickies, its just easier to be good at the game and use your spells. Good tanks dont get agro snatched from them, good clerics dont let ppl die without using any clicks. Good dps can do their dmg using their mana and not die(goes back to tanks keeping agro.) All the things you describe make me think you have zero experience in a raid scenario.

Guilds dont raid the way they do because its "the way it ought to be." we raid that way because its the most efficient way. Using all those click items like u suggested is just dumb.

I dont think it would any more complicated than using the clicks you folks already use. You mentioned using the mallet, Charging or redoing quest aside. If you dont mind me asking what other sort of charged items might you use on raids? I dont blame any warrior for using the mallet btw, Warrior innate Swing/hit agro is way off on p99 imo

I dont think its anymore complicated than having 12 spell slots and knowing when to use them instead of 8. You make it sound like it would have to be some kind of choriographed masterpiece.

I have not done much end game content on P99. I was one of the first dozen or two on p99 to 60 ( just saying im not some lvl 40 who knows nothing ) I did however raid from 1999-2004 On Povar with Forces Unknown and Triton, and before the server split with Xev, The Grey Council and Harmonium.. See earlier posts of me mentioning I was with Triton when Bentos completed the 10th ring war. So I do have raid experience.

Look, im not saying anyone must have these things to complete any content. Any decent guild with the proper amount of people really dont have to have them. This is 11 year old content after all. Although some items might make things easier and possibally trivialize parts of an encounter. When things get harder with VP and velious btw ( I lol at all the 32k /flexing™ ) These clicks become much more useful and unbalanced.

Ive heard about the idol ( invuln ) training in sky here on p99 back in the day. People have great imaginations and will figure out every way to use and abuse click items. There are so many of them, with so many effects, more issues are bound to come up IMHO.