Project 1999 - Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)

- Rants and Flames (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

- - Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this (/forums/showthread.php?t=341208)

When I've been with enchanters it's broken often enough that the healer is always oom so the enchanter stops charming mobs.

i also recall a lot of people charming mobs into buggy hilarity and using them to set loose the havoc of PoD on guards due to faction mattering for charmed pets or something. i guess thats kind of unrelated, but yeah, charming was .. different, if nothing else

it wasn't as widespread, but bards and necros could also fear kite things into corners and free xp. that must have been efficient, but no one told me bout it. it did happen though, even if a lot of us don't remember it.. charm may have been similar, may not. dont know for sure, needs citation

watching the imp protector do half of naggys health on green was pretty laughable, that's how reliable charm is here

That's the thing. I think people think it was more broken because if you level an enchanter naked (or at least with no added +CHA gear) it's going to break a lot more.

I did this on red years ago as well on my first character and it was very dicey trying to charm anything within 1-2 levels of me and have it stick for a decent duration.

I think people see charm through the lens of their twinked blue enchanters with 200+ mana, not the struggling enchanter in rags that we have been on green so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexenu (Post 3026657)

It's absolutely not classic. But there is a large segment of the playerbase on P1999 who will argue otherwise just because Charm allows them to get away with a LOT of stuff solo, duo or in small groups that would otherwise be impossible. And since these people just want their pixels they don't care if charm is not classic. Many of these same people seem to believe that everyone who played in the classic era was a complete idiot who didn't know what any of the spells did. This is their explanation for why charm wasn't exploited to such a degree back then: that people simply didn't realize how powerful it was. Or that they didn't have enough +CHA gear to take advantage of it. This is, of course, completely asinine. Charm simply did NOT work nearly as well back then, and neither did the Lull/Calm line of spells. EQ was being played extremely heavily by many, many thousands of players back then. These are the players who figured out how to do EVERY QUEST in the game, including all the Epics. They were NOT idiots who didn't understand what they were doing. They knew damn well what Charm could and could not do. And they knew it was more trouble than it was worth, because back in the day that's how it was coded.

This

I think roots, lulls, and charms are all significantly better in p99 than in original. No proof though.

The "Get some proof!" argument is exactly what he's talking about.

We all know it wasn't this good in 99, but "Get some proof!" rules the day.

But...why is there no proof....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexenu (Post 3026657)

So much passion, so much strawman tho.

I don't even think you are bullshitting. I think you believe what you say. However, find the evidence of the mechanics. Your opinion matters as much as mine = nothing. Memories from 20 years ago are not valid. Opinions from 20 years ago are not valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkslide632 (Post 3026702)

The "Get some proof!" argument is exactly what he's talking about.

We all know it wasn't this good in 99, but "Get some proof!" rules the day.

It is what it is. Changing anything to something different will require devs to know that values of what things should be. It's just guessing otherwise, hence the requirement for proof.

It's like how many people know original Splitpaw dungeon was low level, but there aren't reliable records of mob levels, mob names, damage numbers, drops, etc., so they can't change it.