It seems like they should have undertuned it then made it more powerful when provided with proof instead of how it is here

My main on blue is an enchanter and it's super fun but not classic everquest

Most people didn't know the importance of mob level or MR debuffs. And had shitty dial up internet. And didn't know about global cooldown reset.

Some people still used charm very effectively. Charm played a vital role for the first AOW kills.

It shouldn't be surprising that a few people can coordinate on discord to keep a charm mob under control.

I like ENC and dont care if it stays broke but it's kinda inconsistent with the way mages are being handled

Why bully mages when enchanters can clear out areas faster than a full group can

Regardless of whether it was classic or not, to allow a single class such a massive amount of power is fucking moronic. Allowing a single class to literally charm a single mob with very little risk that can out dps an entire DPS dedicated group is so fucking dumb it's incredible. To refuse to change such a blatantly broken mechanic is just too stupid for words.

hey

calm down

if charm broke 2x or 3x as much we'd still use it for leveling, groups, and dragons. you can color shift mez and recharm. its just how it is now

nah man this is how people leveled in 1999 it's classic (tm) /s

the "muh evidence" argument isnt just being stubborn. its not the community's mind you have to change here... if you want to change it to classic, the devs need numbers. if a percentage of us remember something a different way, even if its a majority (and im not saying it is in this case), they still cant just "fix" it without knowing what and to what degree something was different

im in agreement that charm mechanics from the original client are probably different than titanium. its the case for pathing, too. something totally fundamental to the game. probably a ton of other things that we wouldnt know unless we got into a time machine and saw it

its just not a simple matter to retool things to their original state

At the time it was necromancers who had this comment attached to them.

I actually personally agree with you that the game would be much better off if Charm was much less reliable, but again, who cares what I think. It is unlikely the devs here are going to make any changes to it without evidence on which they can act -- and that is the thing, if someone did a nice deep dive on it and found some real evidence, and posted a bug report, there's a pretty good chance they would rework it.

How is it inconsistent? Mages sure have gotten shafted, but its not arbitrary -- someone went out and did a ton of quality research on them and submitted very detailed, thorough evidence to the devs which lead to things being the way they are. I agree it really sucks for mages and is frustrating, but if anything this is proof if someone got off their ass and did what Dolalin did with mages for charm/chanter research, It'd probably happen!

The charm code here is not the stock EQEMU code, I can't say how it differs or how much work was put into it or how much research was done, but you don't know either. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that whatever DEV here did the charm code, after deciding the stock code needed a re-work, probably did more research than you have. And you know what? Even if it is wrong (which it very well may be!) it works, and is likely a fair approximation of the classic system, and barring someone going and finding real evidence, I don't see the devs re-writing the system based on your half remembered opinion-complaints.

I want to emphasize here, I am not saying you're wrong, just that no P99 Dev is likely to come volunteer many hours of their time to retune the charm system which is working fine at the moment without some damn evidence it really is out of kilter.
Finally, I appreciate you made at least some effort to find something that sort of resembles evidence, but this doesn't tell us anything. You can find people who would write the same thing about charm on P99 today. That is not to say it is of no value, it could be one piece in a much larger sample of evidence that all pointed in a similar way, but alone it is meaningless.