Enchanter OP impact poll

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Larger Analysis"

Oh please.

Any analysis you provide will be incomplete propaganda because you have already made up your mind before the analysis even began. We don't trust you. We don't like you. You clearly have an agenda. Your motivations are deeply rooted in bias, therefore any supposed "analysis" you provide should be thrown out.

The only "evidence" I would accept at this point, is for you and Dolalin to track down an original EQ Dev, specifically the people who coded enchanter mechanics and get them on the record about this issue. Trying to rely on posts, musing and thoughts of PLAYERS (20 Years Ago) is comical at best trying to prove something like this.

Are there any patch notes that comment specifically on the reliability of charm? Any? Made better? Made worse? Charisma having an effect? You're standing on a soap box thumbing your nose at a lot of people playing a specific class. The burden of proof needs to beyond angelfire pages, forum posts and blogs.

Is there proof that the current mechanics are era classic? I personally have no idea where the devs got their formulas, etc. from. This is an _emulator. Most formula are best guess.

To your point, the evidence presented by OP et al is largely circumstantial, but it might be stronger than evidence showing the current implementation is correct.

[G13]

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

Is there proof that the current mechanics are era classic? I personally have no idea where the devs got their formulas, etc. from. This is an _emulator. Most formula are best guess.

To your point, the evidence presented by OP et al is largely circumstantial, but it might be stronger than evidence showing the current implementation is correct.

That's the point

It can't be proven

People did not play enchanters 20 years ago like they play them now. Not even close.

When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it. That doesn't mean the mechanics are broken and need a nerf

There is nothing "rock hard" that can prove it either way, but the OP already knows this. This thread is a narrative campaign to get the devs to make changes HE wants. It's all rooted in ego.

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's the point

It can't be proven

People did not play enchanters 20 years ago like they play them now. Not even close.

When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it. That doesn't mean the mechanics are broken and need a nerf

There is nothing "rock hard" that can prove it either way, but the OP already knows this.

Are the devs using the formula's from live in era? If not, then it's not classic. Unless a dev comes forward and says, "Yes, we have the source code" then we can safely assume it's not correct.

You're basically saying the status quo, which very likely is entirely emulated code based on formulae reverse engineered from a version of the game many years past classic, shouldn't be questioned. Like, feel free to be unconvinced by OP and provide constructive criticism, but saying stuff like "it can't be proven" is defeatist and not in the spirit of the project.

This is your opportunity to counter the thesis of OP with evidence to the contrary, not a flippant appeal to "When people play a game for 20 years they get better at it".

At this point, Project 1999 is a _research_ project. So, research.

[G13]

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

You're basically saying the status quo, which very likely is entirely emulated code based on formulae reverse engineered from a version of the game many years past classic, shouldn't be questioned. Like, feel free to be unconvinced by OP and provide constructive criticism, but saying stuff like "it can't be proven" is defeatist and not in the spirit of the project.

I'm so tired of this pathetic tactic

"So you're saying" (followed by nothing I actually said) Ok Cathy Newman

"Everybody Knows" OP constantly does this

These are phrases used by people that don't have an argument or any evidence in an attempt to persuade stupid people. I've sarcastically even used them a few times in this thread

We're 10+ years into the project. "Research" is a joke because it consists of trying to find obscure angelfire pages or guild blog posts that nobody ever read to prove something that could potentially affect the gameplay of a lot of people. I'm sorry, I have a standard of evidence and that isn't it.

Go find an original EQ developer. Get the original source code. You know REAL data to compare it to. Then we can have a discussion.

That's not what this thread is though. This thread is yet another attempt at creating a narrative to get what the OP wants. It's dishonest and yes, that annoys me.

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go find an original EQ developer. Get the original source code. You know REAL data to compare it to. Then we can have a discussion.

This entire project is based on evidence much less direct than what you suggest is the barrier to entry for "a discussion".

[cd288]

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

This entire project is based on evidence much less direct than what you suggest is the barrier to entry for "a discussion".

I mean it’s based in part on the client code and then patch notes and legitimate EQ sources. From what I understand, it’s pretty rare that a random hearsay post from a random player from 21 years ago is used as evidence to make a change

[Keebz]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean it’s based in part on the client code and then patch notes and legitimate EQ sources. From what I understand, it’s pretty rare that a random hearsay post from a random player from 21 years ago is used as evidence to make a change

Those are good sources, but wouldn't contain things like exact resist formulae for certain spell lines.

My point is not so much to say OP's evidence is compelling, but that such discussions can be valuable if they are rooted in evidence and research. I disagree with the attitude that "we can never know" and that even considering it is a waste of time.