Mage pet nerf 100% bot now....

[cd288]

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

I remember on live having an enchanter alt and not really being able to solo charm because it would break and you would lose so much mana you would have to zone. So I would join a group and be master of CC instead. It was a lot of fun. Never rolled an enchanter on green but I'm pretty sure it's a lot easier to charm. Internet connection doesn't really have anything to do with it. When kunark and velious were being released we were getting cable internet that was really fast. Everyone here wants to talk smack about someone stating opinions. Okay how about YOU go look up the code to a 20 year old game that doesn't exist. If it did we'd all be referencing that information so thanks for your 2 cents forum scum.

On a side note my level 49 shaman pet hits for 51. RIP mage bot armies

Except I’m not arguing for P99 to change anything so I don’t have to look up evidence to back what I want changed

[Danth]

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

Except I’m not arguing for P99 to change anything so I don’t have to look up evidence to back what I want changed

That's the important bit. Someone wants it changed badly enough, he'll have to find "smoking gun" proof. I don't agree with your own opinion on the subject and I regard charm as much more reliable on P99 than it was in the original game--but ultimately I don't care enough to spend the time trying to find "proof."

Danth

[Scalem]

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

That's the important bit. Someone wants it changed badly enough, he'll have to find "smoking gun" proof. I don't agree with your own opinion on the subject and I regard charm as much more reliable on P99 than it was in the original game--but ultimately I don't care enough to spend the time trying to find "proof."

Danth

Some people spend more time looking for “proof” instead of just enjoying what we have.

[Jimjam]

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

Some people spend more time looking for “proof” instead of just enjoying what we have.

Looking for evidence for how eq was so we can reconstruct it is literally the entire point of the server. Actually playing the game, levelling toons and so on is just an entertaining sideshow.

[cd288]

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

Looking for evidence for how eq was so we can reconstruct it is literally the entire point of the server. Actually playing the game, levelling toons and so on is just an entertaining sideshow.

Oh without a doubt. The problem we have on the forums is that people will just pick an opinion and parrot it without any evidence at all, or they will find old forum posts saying X and ignore the posts that contradict them and cite those as evidence. Fortunately it seems the devs have a higher standard

[loramin]

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

Oh without a doubt. The problem we have on the forums is that people will just pick an opinion and parrot it without any evidence at all, or they will find old forum posts saying X and ignore the posts that contradict them and cite those as evidence. Fortunately it seems the devs have a higher standard

The problem is, there just isn't evidence for some things. I know you don't have the original live charm rates, because if you did you'd post them and show me that P99 is correct [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] And it's not just you: no one does.

Back in 99-01, no one repeatedly charmed the same mob, for a statistically relevant number of times ... and then did the same at a variety of levels ... then did all that separately for each charming class ... and then saved all of their results for future Nilbog! As a result, our emulator is based on what limited evidence we do have: maybe some small subset of those experiments performed on the EQ Mac server (which went up to what, PoP? LDoN?).

Now, let me ask you something: did you play Street Fighter II? If so, you'd know that Ryu was a popular character, who had a powerful dragon punch attack. If I were to make a Street Fighter II emulator, and no one wanted to dragon punch with Ryu ... do I need to know the exact amount of damage for the dragon punch to know that I got wrong? Or can I tell that my emulator isn't emulating the original game properly, because people aren't playing my emulator the way they played the original?

We know warriors joined groups and tanked on live ... and they do the same here. Score one for our emulator, it plays the same as the game it's emulating. We also know Shaman grouped some, and soloed some by root/rotting on live ... and they do the same here. Score another.

In fact, score one for every class in the game, because they fundamentally play the same way here as they did on live! No one says "oh Mages play completely differently here than they did on live because our Internet connections are beter" ... they say "wow playing a Mage here is just like it was on live!"

When it comes to everything else, our emulator is pretty damn awesome: it emulates the game from 99-01 almost exactly ... except when it comes to charm classes ... which inexplicably don't get played in our emulator the way they did in the original.

[cd288]

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

The problem is, there just isn't evidence for some things. I know you don't have the original live charm rates, because if you did you'd post them and show me that P99 is correct [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] And it's not just you: no one does.

Back in 99-01, no one repeatedly charmed the same mob, for a statistically relevant number of times ... and then did the same at a variety of levels ... then did all that separately for each charming class ... and then saved all of their results for future Nilbog! As a result, our emulator is based on what limited evidence we do have: maybe some small subset of those experiments performed on the EQ Mac server (which went up to what, PoP? LDoN?).

Now, let me ask you something: did you play Street Fighter II? If so, you'd know that Ryu was a popular character, who had a powerful dragon punch attack. If I were to make a Street Fighter II emulator, and no one wanted to dragon punch with Ryu ... do I need to know the exact amount of damage for the dragon punch to know that I got wrong? Or can I tell that my emulator isn't emulating the original game properly, because people aren't playing my emulator the way they played the original?

We know warriors joined groups and tanked on live ... and they do the same here. Score one for our emulator, it plays the same as the game it's emulating. We also know Shaman grouped some, and soloed some by root/rotting on live ... and they do the same here. Score another.

In fact, score one for every class in the game, because they fundamentally play the same way here as they did on live! No one says "oh Mages play completely differently here than they did on live because our Internet connections are beter" ... they say "wow playing a Mage here is just like it was on live!"

When it comes to everything else, our emulator is pretty damn awesome: it emulates the game from 99-01 almost exactly ... except when it comes to charm classes ... which inexplicably don't get played in our emulator the way they did in the original.

And there are multiple reasons for why they get played differently than they did at launch which I went into in the post. Plenty of reasons beyond “charm works differently”. The simple fact of the matter is you don’t have any evidence to back up your argument beyond “well I don’t remember it being this way” and if that’s the standard then we might as well nerf a million things (mages using coth as a meta raid strategy, MQs, shaman torpor soloing, certain camps being constantly taken, the list goes on and on and on).