When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[Vivitron]

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

Bigger picture though, I think we're talking past each other, so let me try a different tact. At that same forum you provided, I happened to find this interesting post about ... Chardok AoE. As that link clearly shows, people did AoE in Chardok in classic! There is zero doubt: Chardok AoEing happened in the classic era.

Thanks for sharing that, interesting link. Suggests an alternate approach to nerfing new metas like chardok ae: consider following the later era live nerf. (Are rooted dragons following a later era live change? I didn't raid on live, so I don't know about that.)

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Almost every single mention of Charm in what I've posted is people citing how strong it is as a solo option.

Most of those examples which provide level ranges also describe charm as not holding very well when used against level appropriate content. Most of the charm solo'ing described is of the "charm and let the mobs beat each other down" variety with frequent need to re-charm, not so much the "charm one mob and hold it for three hours while it barely ever breaks early" type that is probably the larger issue for this specific thread.

The sort of hard evidence required to enact change (average durations at different level ranges and different CHA values) probably does not exist. I wouldn't want to see the pendulum swing too far in the other direction so for the meantime I maintain a wait and see attitude.

Danth

[oldschoolguy]

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

I'm aruging charm was more risky in classic

It wasn't, it was easier to charm in classic IMO. Shit breaks too much on P99.

I was charming yellow con crocs to fight red con crocks on live, was fun. I can't pull that off here, since here it's all based off level difference so attempting to Charm a yellow = suicide here. On live it worked fine.

[Dolalin]

I spent three years archiving over 50GB of classic EQ sites and my best hunches on charm in classic are:

1) mob resists over lvl35 may have been higher in classic than they are on p99. Level 35 was a magic number for resists according to devs.

2) lots of little charm bugs that existed in classic that don't exist on p99 and would be hard to replicate (I compiled a list somewhere)

3) channeling at low levels is broken on p99, it's waaaaaay too easy to channel, a level 5 shaman succeeds like 80% of channels on p99 but only succeeded about 10% in classic, that matters

Just off the top of my head.

[Kich867]

Ugh, my edit got eaten, but...

http://web.archive.org/web/200112020...ubb=forum&f=20

Link to an in-era forum of enchanters all talking about charm kiting to solo and where best to do it...

I found another half-dozen or so posts from 2001 all recommending Charm kiting as the way for enchanters to solo, how strong it is, how enchanters are some of the best soloers, having 200 charisma allowing them to charm red cons, etc. etc.

I honestly do not see a strong case to suggest that enchanters weren't charming the same exact way they are now back then.

Some more quotes since I'm bored:

"Don't be afraid to charm at early levels. Oasis is a great place to start. Its loads of fun to charm a croc and send it after another. Just slow the enemy reptile and your pet is almost sure to win. Since these reptiles don't agro on you a succesful mem blur will get them off of you for good if charm breaks or you get into a fight you can't handle. I only had a charisma of 78 when charming blue to even cons and most charms lasted for about 2 kills.

PS People don't know much about enchanters, especially at this level, so they will think your pet is some unusual invincible croc because they won't be able to hit it until charm breaks." - 2001

"I was in FM recently and charmed a giant and all was great, except that I had a hard time controlling him, and then he seemed to be charmed for FOREVER! Is there a way to break the charm cycle???" - 2001

"As for charm, dont, thats something that takes several hours and lots of death to master, but once you do its very powerfull. I suggest learning on spectres in oasis, but its not something required for normal grouping (tho to be l33t you should be able to solo at least 5 blue mobs at once)." - 2001, joking about how enchanters can handle 5 blue mobs at once with charming...

"Using charm you can solo the whole island of spectres at a much lower level. It would also be more mana efficient on a kill by kill basis." - 2001

"As for how well charisma effects spells. At 120 cha charm will stick, but not every time and did not last long. At 160 charisma I could charm stuff higher level than me and hold them for most of a battle. At 200 cha, I can charm something red almost everytime, and hold it for most of a battle, and recharm with little or no trouble." - 2001

"Solo wise there are many ways for an enchanter to solo, I have posted one on how to solo with pets. You can also be normal and do the charm techniques. We are one of the best soloers due to the fact that when it is us vs one, we can't take just one most of the time. What we are good at is soloing 2, 3, or 4 at a time. Charm style." - 2001, emphasis mine, specifically citing that charm soloing is "the normal" thing to do.

[NegaStoat]

Kich867, that was an amazing find. I spent over 20 minutes just browsing through the old posts from the pre Luclin era and chuckling over the comments of what players were dealing with back then. "FFA = Fighters Filch All" was classic. But I did read for myself the things you cherry picked, as well as the other posts relating to Enchanters solo play, group play, and acting as a damned party puller using Lull while keeping a charmed pet active (the chardok group post).

Unless someone can dig something up to contradict this, I think your evidence is a rock solid reference.

[Malk]

http://web.archive.org/web/200203131...VIEW.ASP?ID=71

Implementing this 'feature' could actually be fun.

[Kich867]

To be clear, I asked that because you cited non-classic changes as a means to make the game feel more classic...presumably as a reason to nerf charm. To me this is a binary perspective--you would either support nerfing charm to make it feel more classic even though its mechanically "the same" here, or you would support nerfing charm because it actually isn't mechanically "the same" and there's an issue with it. I didn't see any other reason you would bring up an objectively un-classic AOE nerf to make the game feel more "classic" other than to use it as a reference to say: "Even if Charm actually did work this way back then, I don't care, it wasn't in the spirit of Classic and it should be changed, just like this unclassic AOE change that we all agree made the game more classic."

Look I totally get that your point is:
"If Charm was this good, then why did no one do this regularly? The answer must be that charm is different here."

And my point is:
"I actually looked through all this stuff and the consensus was clearly that enchanters just didn't know. It's a complicated class and given that a large portion of the playerbase clearly didn't understand how important Charisma was, it's not surprising that the status quo was that Charm was too dangerous and unreliable.

But there actually was a rather common perspective that charm soloing was incredibly fast to level, and really just the existence of a few people saying that invalidates any amount of people who had already made up their mind that enchanters were a grouping centric class."

Also, because I know this was important to you earlier, I also have absolutely no dog in this race. I've never leveled an enchanter past I think.. 8? And that was on live in Kunark era. I've basically never played one and I don't have one here.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To be clear, I asked that because you cited non-classic changes as a means to make the game feel more classic

I cited an example of the staff making a classic change. Again, almost everyone would agree that the 25 mob AoE limit makes things more classic, not less. Chardok looks more like it did in '99-'01 with that change.

But I also made it very clear (if you actually read my post) that we don't need any new mechanics here, we just need the unclassic ones (eg. the ones Dolalin outlined, though his post is likely not conclusive either) fixed to be classic.

Originally Posted by Kich867 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look I totally get that your point is:
"If Charm was this good, then why did no one do this regularly? The answer must be that charm is different here."

No, that's not my point. I've repeated my point over and over in this thread, so by now it's clear you're choosing to replace the argument I'm making with a simplified version that you can more easily argue with ... which is to say you're using the straw man fallacy.

[Kich867]

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

I cited an example of the staff making a classic change. Again, almost everyone would agree that the 25 mob AoE limit makes things more classic, not less. Chardok looks more like it did in '99-'01 with that change.

But I also made it very clear (if you actually read my post) that we don't need any new mechanics here, we just need the unclassic ones (eg. the ones Dolalin outlined, though his post is likely not conclusive either) fixed to be classic.

Then I don't understand why you'd even bring it up to begin with, it seemed to hurt what I thought was your perspective that Charm is mechanically not classic by citing an example of a change to artificially create a more classic environment even though that's not how it actually worked.

No, that's not my point. I've repeated my point over and over in this thread, so by now it's clear you're choosing to replace the argument I'm making with a simplified version that you can more easily argue with ... which is to say you're using the straw man fallacy.

Then I'm sorry, I genuinely don't get your point then. I've read all your posts and that was literally my best attempt at summarizing what I thought you were trying to say.