Enchanter OP impact poll

[ClephNote]

You gotta remember that these random internet posters weren’t prophets that spoke with Brad via a burning bush. It was basically in era Loramin. We got Loramin quoting Loramin.

Don’t forget to update the wiki!

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Keebz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The lack of rigor is further proof that any cursory attempt to measure the effect of CHA on charm duration suggests a linear relationship. Here's another thread from 2012 https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...9&postcount=52

There's been many people who have individually come to the same conclusion with minimal data sets.

Meanwhile the guide, who's veracity you've otherwise defended, claims no discernible relationship between CHA and charm duration.

Coming to a conclusion with "minimal data sets" is exactly the god damn problem. This other bit of data you linked here clearly spells out the issue I informed you of: the randomness inherent in charming requires a very large sample size to determine the exact effects of cha. This data showed that the average was TWICE as high as the median, which means HIGHLY RANDOM and/or TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE.

But if you wanna use that data it turns out that the average on the low cha test was actually in close agreement with the charm durations that the guy who wrote that guide was lso seeing himself at the low cha levels he was geared.. Ge was saying average charm rates i n the 2.5 mins range. If you put any stock in that data it confirms what he was saying.

And, if you'd actually sit down and think a bit about it inseatd of jumping to half ass conclusions, you'd then understand why he doesn't think cha is the greatest stat in the world : he is happy with the amount of time he gets on his charms because he's immediately killing his own charm after a fight or 2. He DOESN'T CARE if it lasts more than 3 mins or so because his pet wil be dead by then.

Additionally. don't be a lying piece of trash like Asston. He never said cha was not important for charming or had no discernable effects, he just said he no longer considered it godly and as I informed you above as to his reasons why.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm talking about two distinct things, but you're conflating them.

Thing #1: how one can tell that things aren't classic here (the fact that our game matches what all of the sites in '99-'01 describe, for every class ... except Enchanters).

Thing #2: why we aren't classic (as I mentioned, there are multiple issues, at least some of which have already been documented with evidence by people who know far more than I, eg. Dolalain).

There’s many reasons why things are different here, including knowledge of classes and what class is needed to farm the most valuable camps, and tech specs.

Again, if you have actual real evidence then go post it in the bug forums and stop arguing about it here. The reason you’re still here on this thread is all you have is speculation and your own opinions and experiences (which are contradicted by other players) and old player posts which are contradicted by other old player posts.

Show data mining (as we did with channeling), patch notes, or dev statements. Otherwise anything you have to offer beyond that is pointless hearsay. /thread

[bubur]

fine I'll make my own solution

charm should only work on members of the opposing gender, which you will be able to now choose independently of your outward appearance on a scale from 1-100

to keep it classic we won't tell anyone what the numbers mean so we can make threads debating which is the most effective, and even the player themself will not be totally sure what they picked and is therefore in a constant state of questioning

feedback?

[this user was banned]

Originally Posted by bubur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

fine I'll make my own solution

charm should only work on members of the opposing gender, which you will be able to now choose independently of your outward appearance on a scale from 1-100

to keep it classic we won't tell anyone what the numbers mean so we can make threads debating which is the most effective, and even the player themself will not be totally sure what they picked and is therefore in a constant state of questioning

feedback?

That's homophobic...

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Coming to a conclusion with "minimal data sets" is exactly the god damn problem. This other bit of data you linked here clearly spells out the issue I informed you of: the randomness inherent in charming requires a very large sample size to determine the exact effects of cha. This data showed that the average was TWICE as high as the median, which means HIGHLY RANDOM and/or TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE.

Are you trying to make the claim that multiple lines of independent research done on p99 on the effect of CHA on charm duration on p99 are incorrect? Or that it is unfeasible to do so?

Because it is well documented how effective CHA is at increasing charm duration here--it is very effective. The evidence is all over the forums. I've linked 3 examples already.

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He never said cha was not important for charming or had no discernable effects, he just said he no longer considered it godly and as I informed you above as to his reasons why.

https://xornn.tripod.com/Tactics/charm.htm

"Charm duration is random, and not visibly affected by Charisma."

Excuse my paraphrasing.

[bubur]

Originally Posted by this user was banned [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's homophobic...

I see where you're coming from but not necessarily. this assumes charm, an alteration spell, is inherently sexual in nature, but I don't think there's any evidence of that. what I'm saying is that it's based on brain function and manipulation of motor neurons but they must be diametrically opposed for the spell to spellinate

That said I'm willing to accept randomly assigned mutations in the system such that you also have to find out through experimentation if you have a straight charm or some other variation

Another feature we could add is that the whole system might just actually not work at all, so then we would truly be wondering

[DMN]

keebz = azxten

[azxten]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

keebz = azxten

Not everyone who proves you wrong is one entity. We are many.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by azxten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not everyone who proves you wrong is one entity. We are many.

I meant to switch accounts to post that, but the point stands. Where is the delete button?