Mage pets

[tommydgun]

Lol what are people smoking thinking these casters are outdpsing rogues? My rogue at 31 backstabs for a high of 180 which is 0 mana and reused every what 10s? Quad attacks for high hits of 35. When I have haste especially how do you figure a caster is outdpsing me?

[RipVanFish]

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

Lol what are people smoking thinking these casters are outdpsing rogues? My rogue at 31 backstabs for a high of 180 which is 0 mana and reused every what 10s? Quad attacks for high hits of 35. When I have haste especially how do you figure a caster is outdpsing me?

As a mage, between my pet, my damage shield kept on the tank and dropping nukes, I feel like I usually outpace rogue dps. Just my 2C.

[liquidki]

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

Caster dps is significantly higher than melee before clarity. This still doesn't change the perception that rogues and monks are the top dps to bring into groups over mages, locks and wiz.

I've been in these melee groups, mobs die painfully slow in comparison to having int casters filling the dps roles.

When I think about DPS as it pertains to the group role, I am thinking about sustained DPS. A caster can blow up a mob faster than a melee DPS, but then they need to sit down for a few minutes to refill their mana bar. During that few minutes the rogue or monk has been attacking nonstop while the caster contributes no damage.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you considered how stupid this statement is?

This server isn't about what people *remember*

You seem to have missed that, despite your obvious involvement.

I'm still not certain if you are excessively stupid, or just a really good troll, so please reply.

First off, my "obvious involvement" is only as a long-time player, poster, and wiki user.

But second, I have been here awhile, and I am very familiar with the server's goals and desire to have classic mechanics.

My post was pointing to the fact that, when you perfectly recreate 527 rules for any emulated system, and you're absolutely certain you got all 527 correct ... but whatever system you were trying to emulate still isn't behaving the same as its target, despite being given the same inputs ... then the obvious inference is that you're missing rule #528 which would make the system actually behave as the target.

Some argue the inputs changed, because players have more knowledge ... but live players weren't morons. We're talking about literally thousands of Live Enchanter players: they may have lacked perfect knowledge, but I just don't see why people would have failed to notice "if I cast this charm spell that's on my list and kind of core to my class's entire concept, I'm better at doing damage than any other class."

I believe the devs have done a spectacular job emulating classic EverQuest in nearly every way possible, which is a truly incredible feat. It's the work of two incredibly passionate project leads and a significant number of other volunteers who all gave countless hours of their time to write code for a server they personally could never play on. As a programmer myself I have nothing but respect for everything they've accomplished.

I just think that when Enchanters are the top DPS, it feels like rule #528 is missing.

[tommydgun]

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

wizards get conflag at 44 thats 600 dmg and with full mana they can cast it like 12 times

your damage is crap

Nice argument. Unfortunately you are comparing a 44 spell to a response about a 31 rogues dps. Look at a level appropriate spell. Also you cant nuke 12x in a row without drawing aggro but I can dps the whole time.

Try again. I know math is hard.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

but live players weren't morons. We're talking about literally thousands of Live Enchanter players: they may have lacked perfect knowledge, but I just don't see why people would have failed to notice "if I cast this charm spell that's on my list and kind of core to my class's entire concept, I'm better at doing damage than any other class."

People mostly didn't notice how effective charm was on P99 blue until the middle of kunark. Why is it such a stretch that barely anyone noticed in 1999-2001?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...rm+solo&page=2

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo


These are the first handful of the oldest threads in the blue forums of a search including the words "enchanter," "solo," and "charm."

MOST of the people talking about enchanters think that they're mediocre solo, don't mention chanters as part of the best duos, sometimes didn't even realize that charm solo was an effective way to exp at all. Some people even post and say they remember having an easier time using charm on live than on P99. Almost everyone rates necro above chanter for solo, saying stuff like "chanters are for groups and buffs." NOBODY says "hey yo, my buddy is a chanter and solos freeti and lord and king to get rich and you can too!"


If the minority of people who played live and still were interested in classic EQ in 2010 barely understood/didn't understand enchanters... it only makes sense that FUCKING NO ONE did in 1999-2001.

Imo, until the solo artist challenge was front and center on the forums for months straight and people (you know, like me) started streaming/recording what chanters could do with charm, almost no one here understood what chanters could do. And seriously. If after a decade, in the minority of people who were so into classic EQ that they were still playing on a classic EMU in 2010, of that minority only a literal handful had a strong grasp of what a chanter was capable of... why in the world would you think more people would have understood 10 years earlier than that?

[loramin]

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

People mostly didn't notice how effective charm was on P99 blue until the middle of kunark. Why is it such a stretch that barely anyone noticed in 1999-2001?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...rm+solo&page=2

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ter+charm+solo


These are the first handful of the oldest threads in the blue forums of a search including the words "enchanter," "solo," and "charm."

MOST of the people talking about enchanters think that they're mediocre solo, don't mention chanters as part of the best duos, sometimes didn't even realize that charm solo was an effective way to exp at all. Some people even post and say they remember having an easier time using charm on live than on P99. Almost everyone rates necro above chanter for solo, saying stuff like "chanters are for groups and buffs." NOBODY says "hey yo, my buddy is a chanter and solos freeti and lord and king to get rich and you can too!"


If the minority of people who played live and still were interested in classic EQ in 2010 barely understood/didn't understand enchanters... it only makes sense that FUCKING NO ONE did in 1999-2001.

Imo, until the solo artist challenge was front and center on the forums for months straight and people (you know, like me) started streaming/recording what chanters could do with charm, almost no one here understood what chanters could do. And seriously. If after a decade, in the minority of people who were so into classic EQ that they were still playing on a classic EMU in 2010, of that minority only a literal handful had a strong grasp of what a chanter was capable of... why in the world would you think more people would have understood 10 years earlier than that?

... OR people on Live understood how to cast their spells, it's just that Live had different mechanics (in some way) which convinced people who tried it that it was a bad idea.

Maybe that mechanic was simply flaky internet connections, but personally I just don't see how that explanation or the "people were dumb and wouldn't try charming to see how great it was" explanations could realistically explain the vast difference between here and Live.

Going from "the mezzers" (which is how I feel everyone remembers them) to "the best DPS" solo or in group, is changing the class fundamentally: it's HUGE. If you're being intellectually rigorous with yourself and you find that those arguments do perfectly explain that major difference ... well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

OR ... people on Live understood how to cast their spells ... BUT Live had different mechanics (in some way) which encouraged them not to. We'll have to agree to disagree as to which.

Your entire argument seems to be "if charm mechanics were the same on live as they are on p99, then it would have been widely known how powerful charm is. Nobody could have been playing with the mechanics we have today without realizing how to take advantage of them."

And that argument is proven to be horrible when I demonstrate how, even WITH the p99 mechanics, it wasn't widely known how to use a chanter for at least a couple years of blue's existence... and that it was only after a number of enchanters showed, very publicly, what chanters were capable of, that it started to be common knowledge.

You "agreeing to disagree" in face of that is you "being obtuse."


And this is ignoring the classic-era charm tests that have been discussed around here recently, classic-era guides that go into detail about how powerful charm, accepted fact that many things that make charming easier today weren't widely practiced back in the day (primarily GCD resets). And this is ignoring the fact that your argument is disproved by other things; GCD resets are incredibly strong and were present in classic and known of by some people... but they still weren't common knowledge then (and still weren't on P99 for years and years, iirc). This all just goes even further to support my position here. And all you've got is the single line of reasoning that is shot to pieces by all of this stuff.

[Erati]

I think people REALLY didnt want their characters to die on Live first time tru so all it takes is one quick charm break death to decide “not worth it”

The rewards were not known yet for that continued risk so why bother?

If you can kill and gain exp w o using charm which could kill you any moment, why would you bother w it at all. Its not til enchanters start solo ing the entire globe for pixel riches that you see the risk/reward of charm play out.

People also are much faster ab CR nowadays compared to our classic experience. Death happens and we move on, but first play tru each death was devastation.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

"people were dumb and wouldn't try charming to see how great it was"

Who has ever made that argument? I don't ever remember seeing anyone say this except for people like you claiming others have made it.

There's (very obviously) a difference between people on the whole being dumb and something taking time to become common knowledge and accepted practice. Again. My demonstrating that even on p99, it wasn't common knowledge what enchanters were capable of for years, totally cuts down your argument.