When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[loramin]

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

This poh guide from 2000 literally talks about charming
https://thesafehouse.org/forums/foru...-plane-of-hate

Just because you didn't see enchanters charming, or don't remember, doesn't mean they didn't.

Like I keep repeating, over and over, I'm not saying Enchanters didn't charm in classic! My argument is that the degree of charming, the relative lack of risk in charming, is not classic.

Again, every Fear raid here is accomplished through pets (unless like two guilds are fighting and one kills all the others' pets first or something). But I have little doubt that you can find some rare evidence of charming by some Enchanters, on some Fear raids. What you won't find is evidence in the vast majority of sources ... because (again) charming was rare in classic.

Like I keep saying, it would absolutely be unclassic to remove charming ... but making it just a little harder, just a little riskier, 100% would be. Keeping it as easy and as safe as it is here, while ignoring the fact that the safety is making people play the class vastly differently from how it was played in classic ... well, that's like making a Street Fighter II emulator, and maintaining that it's an accurate emulator ... while ignoring the fact that no one is dragon punching with Ryu.

[whydothis]

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

What you won't find is evidence in the vast majority of sources ... because (again) charming was rare in classic.

Like I keep saying, it would absolutely be unclassic to remove charming ... but making it just a little harder, just a little riskier, 100% would be.

You say this but you have no evidence of the actual charming rates back then. There are in era guides where people talk about charming pets for various encounters. Do you have proof of enchanters in 99-01 saying how they never charm? Or how rarely they do it?

You want to make it riskier? How exactly? And to what end - until you feel it's ok? There's no way to change it and be sure it's accurate. If there's no explicit evidence of charming working differently than what we have then this doesn't even deserve discussion.

Since you mentioned it, people play street fighter 2 differently now than they did in 1992. Given time, strategies change. People have figured out how to charm optimally. Gotta just accept it.

[commongood]

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

Like I keep saying, it would absolutely be unclassic to remove charming ... but making it just a little harder, just a little riskier, 100% would be. Keeping it as easy and as safe as it is here, while ignoring the fact that the safety is making people play the class vastly differently from how it was played in classic ... well, that's like making a Street Fighter II emulator, and maintaining that it's an accurate emulator ... while ignoring the fact that no one is dragon punching with Ryu.

It feels like you aren’t talking from experience. Charming isn’t “safe” by a long shot. Charming, at least soloing, involves dying quite often.

Also, what is your proof that charming was more risky and happened less? Cause it sounds like it’s strictly anecdotal. If I missed it and you already posted a link to said proof then apologies

[loramin]

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

You say this but you have no evidence of the actual charming rates back then. There are in era guides where people talk about charming pets for various encounters. Do you have proof of enchanters in 99-01 saying how they never charm? Or how rarely they do it?

You want to make it riskier? How exactly? And to what end - until you feel it's ok? There's no way to change it and be sure it's accurate. If there's no explicit evidence of charming working differently than what we have then this doesn't even deserve discussion.

The whole problem with recreating classic is that it happened over two decades ago, and much of the Internet from that time is lost. I (and I think most people who played in classic) remember Enchanters mezzing in groups, not charming, but we don't have solid evidence one way or the other.

For instance, if you look at the Wayback archive of Caster's Realm strategy guides for Enchanters you'll find:

1. just one out of six is an (unfortunately lost) guide called "CHARM SOLOING - ITS TRUE POWER."
2. "CLERICS, SHAMANS AND STUNS" - another lost guide, presumably about grouping and not charming
3. HOW TO MAKE YOUR HIGH LEVEL ENCHANTER SMILE - a detailed guide on how to mez in groups (ie. what most classic Enchanters actually did), which mentions charming only "If add is unmezzable then enchanter has two choices: charm if possible ..."
4. another lost one ("INFORMATION ON ENCHANTING AFTER LVL 51")
5. "ENCHANTER 51+" - not lost, and again the only mention of charm is ... about bards doing it: "Bards also do a large amount of damage and can debuff mobs some, and they can charm a mob!"
6. another lost one ("A THEORYON SOLOING THE ARCH GHOUL MAGI")

And if you look at other guide sections on Caster's Realm or Allakhazam or similar old sites, you'll find the same: there's absolutely evidence some Enchanters charmed, but in aggregate the charm stuff is the minority.

Now, compare that to here, where we have eight Enchanter guides ... and seven of them are huge on charming (the only one that isn't is a guide for "Enchanter Newbie Gear").

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

Since you mentioned it, people play street fighter 2 differently now than they did in 1992. Given time, strategies change. People have figured out how to charm optimally. Gotta just accept it.

People said the same thing about Chardok AoE, and about Bard swarm kiting: "it was totally possible in classic, it should be possible here". But the devs decided it wasn't classic, and now just I think most would agree that the 25 mob AoE limit makes this place more classic, not less.

P.S. Just to be clear, this is about wanting P99 to be more classic, not about class hate, and everything I'm saying applies to charm in general (ie. Bard/Druid/Necro charming also).

I also have no dog in this fight (unlike all the Enchanter players here who will have a vested interest in keeping their class more powerful). But I do have a 60 Druid (that I leveled mainly through charming, so I'm well aware of how broken it is here), and I plan to main an Enchanter in Green 2.0 ... it's just that I want to play the Enchanter from 1999, not the overpowered P99 version.

[Danth]

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

Like I keep repeating, over and over, I'm not saying Enchanters didn't charm in classic! My argument is that the degree of charming, the relative lack of risk in charming, is not classic..

Isn't it frustrating trying to carry on conversation with folks who apparently want to think only in binary terms? My own take is that probably *all* random duration-type spells, not just charm but certainly including it, are probably "friendlier" on P1999 than they were in the original game. Mez was preferred because it was fixed duration, same reason why it was preferred over root. Proving the above is problematic at best for the reasons you brought up, and I wouldn't want to see anything implemented via guesswork due to the tendency to over-tune it and make it harsher than it ought to be.

Danth

[Treefall]

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

Isn't it frustrating trying to carry on conversation with folks who apparently want to think only in binary terms? My own take is that probably *all* random duration-type spells, not just charm but certainly including it, are probably "friendlier" on P1999 than they were in the original game. Mez was preferred because it was fixed duration, same reason why it was preferred over root. Proving the above is problematic at best for the reasons you brought up, and I wouldn't want to see anything implemented via guesswork due to the tendency to over-tune it and make it harsher than it ought to be.

Danth

Things must change for Enchanters when they are CHA capped or something (my buddy is having a lot of random breaks and dying quite often doing it). As a druid if I am not charming things like 2-3 levels or lower below me the breaks are unmanageable as it is. Maybe that changes for me too, later on? Seems to be the case even with tash up for me. Also tried charming a white mammoth two days ago, 5 resists in a row leading to my death.

[PatChapp]

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

Things must change for Enchanters when they are CHA capped or something (my buddy is having a lot of random breaks and dying quite often doing it). As a druid if I am not charming things like 2-3 levels or lower below me the breaks are unmanageable as it is. Maybe that changes for me too, later on? Seems to be the case even with tash up for me. Also tried charming a white mammoth two days ago, 5 resists in a row leading to my death.

As you get higher lvl, the mobs you'll be charming are much lower lvl in relation to your lvl. Levels and magic resist make the biggest difference in charm durations.

At lvl 60, most mobs you would charm are high 40s to max lvl 53. The lvl 53 mobs will be very hard to manage.

[Nikkanu]

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

People said the same thing about Chardok AoE, and about Bard swarm kiting: "it was totally possible in classic, it should be possible here". But the devs decided it wasn't classic, and now just I think most would agree that the 25 mob AoE limit makes this place more classic, not less.

From a long list of bad arguments and highly subjective takes on unverifiable anecdotal evidence you've presented to support those bad arguments this one takes the cake.

These nerfs as as well as many others (Ivandyr's Hoop/Lifetap , Midnight Mallets, Puppet Strings, the list goes on and on) where not made because they were deemed more "classic" but because the the devs arbitrarily chose to make these changes to effect the meta on p99 only.

At this point you are stomping the life out of your own credibility. I'm not sure why anyone would take anything you've posted here seriously. If you want anyone to take you seriously I'd suggest you come up with evidence that demonstrates your claim that is better than "I can't find guides made by players from 22+ years ago for charming in raids" or "some players thought charm was too risky to use" because we can all agree that's an asinine argument based on a tiny fraction of the data that what was preserved from that era which you vehemently defend like it's some sort of conclusive proof that charm worked vastly different on live, when it's not... as has been explained to you by a number of people already.

[loramin]

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

From a long list of bad arguments and highly subjective takes on unverifiable anecdotal evidence you've presented to support those bad arguments this one takes the cake.

These nerfs as as well as many others (Ivandyr's Hoop/Lifetap , Midnight Mallets, Puppet Strings, the list goes on and on) where not made because they were deemed more "classic" but because the the devs arbitrarily chose to make these changes to effect the meta on p99 only.

At this point you are stomping the life out of your own credibility. I'm not sure why anyone would take anything you've posted here seriously. If you want anyone to take you seriously I'd suggest you come up with evidence that demonstrates your claim that is better than "I can't find guides made by players from 22+ years ago for charming in raids" or "some players thought charm was too risky to use" because we can all agree that's an asinine argument based on a tiny fraction of the data that what was preserved from that era which you vehemently defend like it's some sort of conclusive proof that charm worked vastly different on live, when it's not... as has been explained to you by a number of people already.

Did you play in classic? If so, how would you say the "meta" was for Enchanters: what percentage would you say spent their time grouping vs. soloing?

Now, same question, for any other class. If you answer honestly I think you'll say that every class soloes a bit more on P99 vs. live ... but only one class (Enchanter) has a dramatically different "meta" (of almost exclusively soloing here vs. majority grouping in classic) ... although you'll also find Druids, while still soloing about as much as they did on live, do a whole lot more charm soloing here, vs. more root/rotting or quad/kiting on live. (I suspect you'd find the same is true of Necros/Bards, but I don't know them as well.)

Finally, I'll just remind you that the goal of this place is to recreate EQ as it was in 1999 ... including, at least to some extent, the meta. Maybe that means fixing channeling, maybe that means raising the failure rate of charm slightly, or maybe it means somehow nerfing the Goblin Ghazughi Ring: I don't know. I just know our server doesn't look like the classic one I played on, where virtually every group had an Enchanter (just as virtually every group had a Cleric).

(But if you didn't play in classic, and have no objective evidence about what classic was like ... what exactly are you contributing here?)

[Vivitron]

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

Like I keep repeating, over and over, I'm not saying Enchanters didn't charm in classic! My argument is that the degree of charming, the relative lack of risk in charming, is not classic.

Again, every Fear raid here is accomplished through pets (unless like two guilds are fighting and one kills all the others' pets first or something). But I have little doubt that you can find some rare evidence of charming by some Enchanters, on some Fear raids. What you won't find is evidence in the vast majority of sources ... because (again) charming was rare in classic.

Like I keep saying, it would absolutely be unclassic to remove charming ... but making it just a little harder, just a little riskier, 100% would be. Keeping it as easy and as safe as it is here, while ignoring the fact that the safety is making people play the class vastly differently from how it was played in classic ... well, that's like making a Street Fighter II emulator, and maintaining that it's an accurate emulator ... while ignoring the fact that no one is dragon punching with Ryu.

I am glad there are some velious era raid encounters like CT where charming is worth the risk; the enchanter class loses some of its pizzazz when you strip charm/mez/stun/root/pacify like in most of ToV.

But worth the risk doesn't mean no risk; a few days before you made this post my alliance's pet pile got AoE dispelled, contributing to a wipe.

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

[enchanters] almost exclusively [solo] here

Reflect on the last few times you were in an xp zone. It immediately becomes clear that enchanters frequently group, right? I think you're building up charm to be even better in your mind than it really is on p99.