Enchanter OP impact poll

[DMN]

A contemporary "elite" enchanter from FoH:

Vanilla:
"Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets."

Kunark:
"When kunark was released, we kept pets in groups in Sebilis that doubled the entire groups experience over a 4 or 5 hour experience grind. "

Velious:
"During Velious, we could charm giants in Kael that easily netted twice the exp normally recieved in an experience group. Velious is where the environments started to change and become much more favorable to charming. Once equipment and player stats started reaching the proportions they did in velious, the risk of charm became trivial. "


Any questions from the peanut gallery?

[cd288]

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

A contemporary "elite" enchanter from FoH:

Vanilla:
"Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets."

Kunark:
"When kunark was released, we kept pets in groups in Sebilis that doubled the entire groups experience over a 4 or 5 hour experience grind. "

Velious:
"During Velious, we could charm giants in Kael that easily netted twice the exp normally recieved in an experience group. Velious is where the environments started to change and become much more favorable to charming. Once equipment and player stats started reaching the proportions they did in velious, the risk of charm became trivial. "


Any questions from the peanut gallery?

They’re just going to tell you that those quotes don’t matter because they have quotes showing the exact opposite. Only things that they can use to try and make their whiney demands are things that they’ll consider valid

[azxten]

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

They’re just going to tell you that those quotes don’t matter because they have quotes showing the exact opposite. Only things that they can use to try and make their whiney demands are things that they’ll consider valid

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

[G13]

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

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

"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.

People like you and Dolalin were why mages were running around for months at lvl 50 with lvl 34 pets. Even after admitting it was a mistake, which affected the gameplay experience and made life miserable for mages everywhere, the person responsible for that travesty was never held accountable for it. No apologies to mages. Nothing.

They just moved onto the next "How can we ruin the game for someone else" and feel they have some moral superiority for doing so because they have no life and can dedicate all their time to cherry picking unreliable data scattered across the internet from 20 years ago

The reality is you are not proving anything and you cannot prove anything. You are attempting to create a "narrative" to get the devs to make gameplay changes you want at the expense of everyone else. I hope the devs don't fall for this manipulation.

Whining should be frowned upon. Whiners should be shunned. Whiners should not be rewarded for whining.

[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.

[cd288]

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

The quotes are valid but the complete text is more revealing and is the same that admits an 80% chance of death when doing those things and openly talks about the same power curve across expansions. Just wanted to clarify, it will be in the larger analysis.

Literally loled at some nerd saying “larger analysis” as though they’re putting together a report for the UN security committee or something

[Jibartik]

If we want to fix the game, here's how we do it: nuke the wiki and ban anyone who posts links on how to do stuff.

Make the power secret.

Make the magic magic again.

Let the freaks hang out in a secret corner of the internet mastering everything and dominating all the content like this game is meant to be played.

[Jimjam]

We need to create a compendium of pre-Velious pet AI/pathing bugs, if we could get some of them implemented in time for next iteration, that would be great! Mages / Necro / Enc really smashed it on Green's opening, but I remember horror stories from veterans of how badly behaved pets were predating my start (RoK).

[loramin]

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

We need to create a compendium of pre-Velious pet AI/pathing bugs, if we could get some of them implemented in time for next iteration, that would be great! Mages / Necro / Enc really smashed it on Green's opening, but I remember horror stories from veterans of how badly behaved pets were predating my start (RoK).

https://wiki.project1999.com/Non-Classic_Compendium could always use more additions (or even a separate "non-classic pet stuff" page) ...

[DMN]

More like large anal cyst.