Enchanter is #1 solo class? What is this madness

[Ennewi]

If memory serves, generally speaking, those type of statements haven't been the norm. Similar to the Daybreak agreement or Braknar fallout, we learn about these details long after the fact. Not that this is something to harp on about though. Usually the changes do come and as a surprise, such as the overhaul to West Karanas spawns and pathing which included the very classic ph/werewolf pathers to and from QHills.

An impressive amount of work has gone into this project and that there's still more work to do is a testament to this game.

[sammoHung]

Back to necro dominance, just as it was in 2001

[kjs86z2]

zarza still has the best magelo

https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:Zarza

If you don't have this gear on your enchanter you are a scrublord.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by kjs86z2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

zarza still has the best magelo

https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:Zarza

If you don't have this gear on your enchanter you are a scrublord.

Aye, that is a good one!

[Ennewi]

Inyahin Elbereth has my vote, at least for bard.

[commongood]

Loramin, I admire your dedication and obvious care for project 1999 so please don't take this as me trying to undermine your contributions to these forums or your desire to see things become more "classic".

But you confirming that you had nothing concrete to base your statement about Niblog's pet class being enchanter reads like bias. Of you having a negative bias toward the enchanter class.

You claim that enchanters are too powerful and that this is not classic. This might be correct either fully, partially or it might not be correct. I don't know. I find the "evidence" we are working with (old forum posts of varying quality) to be of doubtful quality but I acknowledge that it's the best we got.

If it is just the most insanely obvious thing - like say they had given the spell Forlorn Deeds to Necromancers or something similar - then thousands and thousands of players could attest to that being incorrect and it would be easy to fix. But we are talking - as far as I understand the discussion - about channeling success rates and resist checks. These are not slam dunk, open-and-shut cases as far as I can tell. And so it kind of muddies the waters when you throw in what is basically just your own speculation that Niblog wants to "keep his pet class unclassically powerful".

I used to main an enchanter on live from 2000-2006. I am not going to say I don't have biases here. But if it is true that channeling rates were different and ditto resists then I will of course accept it if they were to change it. Unfortunately I don't remember it and because I played on a pvp-server I did very little charming until much, much later than Velious. I do remember charm-soloing in Planes of Power and, by then, charm-soloing as an enchanter was certainly "a thing" and that experience as much as I can rely on my memory from 20 years ago was similar to what I experience now on P1999.

Anyway. I am intrigued to see if changes will be made.

[loramin]

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

But you confirming that you had nothing concrete to base your statement about Niblog's pet class being enchanter reads like bias. Of you having a negative bias toward the enchanter class.

When did I confirm anything of the sort? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you even read this thread you are commenting in? It references two very specific examples of obvious bugs making Enchanters unclassically powerful ... bugs which have existed for years, but haven't been fixed.

[commongood]

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

When did I confirm anything of the sort? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you even read this thread you are commenting in? It references two very specific examples of obvious bugs making Enchanters unclassically powerful ... bugs which have existed for years, but haven't been fixed.

Like I stated the changes you are asking for and that are described in those bug-reports might well be correct and might well become implemented at some point. I am mostly concerned with your insinuations that Niblog is acting in bad faith and that the reason he has not implemented these changes is due to him holding the enchanter in unduly high regard.

What I mean is, you state that enchanter is Niblog's pet class but you base this on nothing but the fact that he has not implemented these specific changes that would affect the enchanter negatively and which you believe should be implemented vis a vis the project's stated goals of achieving "classic" EverQuest to the era.

But as far as I can tell that is completely speculative and it has you making assumptions you have no base to make on Niblog's motivations. There could be a myriad of reasons why these changes have not been implemented but you basically assume that it must be because Niblog has a biased affection for the enchanter class.

When I asked you about this you admitted that you didn't know but that you are inferring that enchanter is his pet class and that "I'd bet you $20 that if we could get Nilbog to say what class he played on live, it would be Enchanter.".

What I am getting at is that you seem to be laboring under the weight of a conspiracy. That Niblog knows the correct thing beholden to the spirit of the project is to nerf the enchanter but he is resisting doing this because enchanter is his pet class. And I am just saying that there could be many different reasons why these changes have not been implemented.

[loramin]

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

Like I stated the changes you are asking for and that are described in those bug-reports might well be correct and might well become implemented at some point. I am mostly concerned with your insinuations that Niblog is acting in bad faith and that the reason he has not implemented these changes is due to him holding the enchanter in unduly high regard.

What I mean is, you state that enchanter is Niblog's pet class but you base this on nothing but the fact that he has not implemented these specific changes that would affect the enchanter negatively and which you believe should be implemented vis a vis the project's stated goals of achieving "classic" EverQuest to the era.

But as far as I can tell that is completely speculative and it has you making assumptions you have no base to make on Niblog's motivations. There could be a myriad of reasons why these changes have not been implemented but you basically assume that it must be because Niblog has a biased affection for the enchanter class.

When I asked you about this you admitted that you didn't know but that you are inferring that enchanter is his pet class and that "I'd bet you $20 that if we could get Nilbog to say what class he played on live, it would be Enchanter.".

What I am getting at is that you seem to be laboring under the weight of a conspiracy. That Niblog knows the correct thing beholden to the spirit of the project is to nerf the enchanter but he is resisting doing this because enchanter is his pet class. And I am just saying that there could be many different reasons why these changes have not been implemented.

What I get is you are reading wayyy too much into some random forum posts about a 30-year old game emulator.

Has Nilbog ignored the fact that Enchanters are unclassic on P99? Yes, it's a fact. Have I suggested that it's wildly out of character for someone so obsessed with classic EQ to ignore such unclassicness, over and over, for the many years I've played on this server? Yes: it is weird.

Am I going to post about that contradiction, in large part to call attention to it and try and get Nilbog to address it, so I can get to play the real classic Enchanter I never got to on live (on a forum that's dedicated to ... look in the upper-left corner ... classic EverQuest)? Yes, I certainly will.

But do I think there's some giant "weight of a conspiracy"? No.

[Ennewi]

Conspiracy sounds like a high end spell enchanters should have had in their books, one that required research.