Enchanter OP impact poll

[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.

[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.