Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[Tecmos Deception]

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

it was reliable with velious gear / velious tier debuffs

not nude high elves with crude steins

Classic tash+malo is only 7 points lower than velious tash+malo.

Classic evidence is suggesting charm didn't affect charm durations.

You're awful at this.

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

nothing classic about being in HHK and theres two charming enchanters in gob basement 2 charming enchanters clearing first floor guards a high level charm enchanter soloing second floor guards
another charming enchanter soloing nobles and yes even another charming enchanter and mage duo clearing third and fourth floor

shits getting stupid real quick

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

I'll keep making classic changes when I can, regardless if people threaten to quit. I'm here to recreate classic eq; not to make people happy.

Barking up the wrong tree man.

Go put in bug reports to change other things, that are actually classic mechanics, that would make life harder for enchanters. Charm isn't gonna get changed because at best the evidence is conflicting, and more likely charm is pretty darn close.

[Frug]

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

Classic evidence is suggesting charm didn't affect charm durations.

[Tecmos Deception]

But just to make it clear, since I'm not sure exactly why Frug is quoting that, charisma may not have been affecting durations on live, but durations were still similar to how they are here (except perhaps charms against stuff much lower-level than the chanter).

I kinda assume most people still continuing this discussion didn't see the tests done by a classic-era chanter that we were posting yesterday morning.

[cd288]

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

I posted this in your bug thread too but it will get more attention here

That data clearly demonstrates that lower charisma correlates with higher average charm duration

I'm optimistic about the coming gnome/dark elf enchanter meta

Doesn't seem to clearly demonstrate that

[mystiek]

enchanters are supposed to do CC and buff. period.
charming was not this powerful.
you are not DPS and never was.

[bum3]

It's so bad right now that my wife who played ench in classic for years doesn't charm... she got told she was useless because enchanters are charm dps and not for cc/buffs... wtf has p99 done to EQ?

[Tecmos Deception]

P99 didn't do anything. 20 years of gaming and accumulating EQ knowledge and new internet connections happened though.

There are dozens of reasons why people didn't charm in groups then like they do now that are NOT "charm is mechanically too strong on p99 relative to classic." The little actual data posted in this thread generally backs up p99 charm durations. The people wanting charm nerfed want it nerfed not because they found any solid evidence that it was weaker in classic, but because they don't like enchanters being different than the developers intended, than they remember, than they like.

There's nothing more (meaningful) to discuss unless someone finds more data.


edit - Want some examples of why charm didn't happen in groups from my own personal experiences on live? I charm solod a ton back in the day. I sometimes used a green-con charm in groups for DPS. When I didn't charm in groups, it was for a variety of reasons like
1) "you're not supposed to be a DPS class, you're supposed to be a support/CC class,"
2) I liked focusing on CC,
3) I liked to use mana on nukes for pretty particle effects and the idea of blasting stuff which left me with less to deal with charm breaks in addition to the mandatory CC and buff/debuff roles,
4) I liked to use mana on cripple line of spells because it seemed like those debuffs should help a lot,
5) everyone was bad so trains were more common and CC assistance from rooters was less common so CC required more effort and time back then than now,
6) shitty internet connections caused problems with charms we didn't have back in the day - group mates didn't like babysitting a broken charm until I came back from LD to reclaim it,
7) shit was crowded a lot of the time and groups didn't like a potential exp kill to be tied up as a pet,
8) I never used berserker str line of spells to help protect myself from death on charm breaks because I disliked the short duration that often didn't help and I didn't know how to stack it properly with rune and I thought it was mostly just nice to carry more loot if I didn't have someone else around to str buff to stack with the earth elemental illusion I'd often use for +10 strength,
9) i never used runes above 3 because peridots were "expensive" to me back then,
10) i didn't know what a GCD clicky was,
11) I had spell gems full of stupid spells like cripple, boon, a nuke, multiple durations of mezzes, leaving too little room for the proper charming setup (which I didn't even know about back then anyway),
12) I didn't think to have malaise line cast on charms,
13) I didn't know about -mr gear for pets,
14) I made a chanter back then based on the concept of controlling battles, not doing massive charm dps,

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Any small number of those things was enough to be incompatible with charming a blue con in groups back then, even if charm were stronger on live than it is here. It is ENTIRELY reasonable that p99 charm is very accurate given this line of reasoning + actual data we have in this thread about charm durations.

If you think that it would be possible to play like 99% of us did back in the day while maintaining a high-blue-con charm pet in groups, demonstrate it on a video on p99. I guarantee if you're not getting malaise or -mr gear, not using berserker str and highest-tier runes, LDing once or more per hour randomly, and nuking once per fight, you'll find charm to be a lot different than when you play with ALL the perks we have because it is 2019 instead of 1999.

[Ligma]

Should we start a new server that requires lobotomies?

[Lojik]

Prior to this thread I had a feeling that somehow, maybe, p99's mechanics were somehow different in regards to charm than they were on live. For the most part with the evidence posted I'm pretty comfortable saying that p99's mechanics seem to, for the most part match how it was on live pre luclin, and all the small factors like bad internet, more trains, crowded camps, probably lead to people playing it safer on enchanters.

Maybe in the early days it was more buggy-
1) Posts of people saying charmed pets attacked players. I'd wager a decent probability that this was due to people not differentiating the actions of multiple npcs of same name, maybe people failing to notice charm had broken, or buggy mechanics where dotted, charmed npcs would attack whoever cast the spell on them?

2) Invis not breaking charm right away- Maybe people would cast invis and not notice that it was interrupted, or that it would break charm on server ticks thus causing a delay?

3) Pets not responding to commands- this one i'd wager a decent probability of people typing the commands wrong

Even it was truly buggy like this, I don't think it's something the devs would implement.

Maybe charm is affected too much by charisma? Still dont know about the reverse charm method being viable on live this era? Maybe summon and hate mechanics different? But for the most part I'd think any nerf to charm would fall into the category of unclassic mechanics/input with the goal of more classic feel/output.

[bum3]

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

P99 didn't do anything. 20 years of gaming and accumulating EQ knowledge and new internet connections happened though.

There are dozens of reasons why people didn't charm in groups then like they do now that are NOT "charm is mechanically too strong on p99 relative to classic." The little actual data posted in this thread generally backs up p99 charm durations. The people wanting charm nerfed want it nerfed not because they found any solid evidence that it was weaker in classic, but because they don't like enchanters being different than the developers intended, than they remember, than they like.

There's nothing more (meaningful) to discuss unless someone finds more data.


edit - Want some examples of why charm didn't happen in groups from my own personal experiences on live? I charm solod a ton back in the day. I sometimes used a green-con charm in groups for DPS. When I didn't charm in groups, it was for a variety of reasons like
1) "you're not supposed to be a DPS class, you're supposed to be a support/CC class,"
2) I liked focusing on CC,
3) I liked to use mana on nukes for pretty particle effects and the idea of blasting stuff which left me with less to deal with charm breaks in addition to the mandatory CC and buff/debuff roles,
4) I liked to use mana on cripple line of spells because it seemed like those debuffs should help a lot,
5) everyone was bad so trains were more common and CC assistance from rooters was less common so CC required more effort and time back then than now,
6) shitty internet connections caused problems with charms we didn't have back in the day - group mates didn't like babysitting a broken charm until I came back from LD to reclaim it,
7) shit was crowded a lot of the time and groups didn't like a potential exp kill to be tied up as a pet,
8) I never used berserker str line of spells to help protect myself from death on charm breaks because I disliked the short duration that often didn't help and I didn't know how to stack it properly with rune and I thought it was mostly just nice to carry more loot if I didn't have someone else around to str buff to stack with the earth elemental illusion I'd often use for +10 strength,
9) i never used runes above 3 because peridots were "expensive" to me back then,
10) i didn't know what a GCD clicky was,
11) I had spell gems full of stupid spells like cripple, boon, a nuke, multiple durations of mezzes, leaving too little room for the proper charming setup (which I didn't even know about back then anyway),
12) I didn't think to have malaise line cast on charms,
13) I didn't know about -mr gear for pets,
14) I made a chanter back then based on the concept of controlling battles, not doing massive charm dps,

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Any small number of those things was enough to be incompatible with charming a blue con in groups back then, even if charm were stronger on live than it is here. It is ENTIRELY reasonable that p99 charm is very accurate given this line of reasoning + actual data we have in this thread about charm durations.

If you think that it would be possible to play like 99% of us did back in the day while maintaining a high-blue-con charm pet in groups, demonstrate it on a video on p99. I guarantee if you're not getting malaise or -mr gear, not using berserker str and highest-tier runes, LDing once or more per hour randomly, and nuking once per fight, you'll find charm to be a lot different than when you play with ALL the perks we have because it is 2019 instead of 1999.

I read a lot of excuses that make no sense. Sounds like you were a really uniformed player back then. Isn't the point to play like back then? Not to play like you're using cheat codes? My friends thought it was great to put in cheat codes and use bugs to get ahead. I always thought they were unskilled. What p99 did do was let players get stuck in time and give rule benders and non-intended loopholes to be used to trivialize content. Everyone on live moved on. Where as p99 players stayed to "perfect" these ideals to where they became the norm. What I find funny is back then.. people had legitimate excuses for trains... shitty netz, LDs... today people train just as much without as many legitimate reasons. Might be less trains if enchanters had CC up instead of a full line of spells solely for pet charming. Cause those caster groups in lguk last night that trained 4x in a hour is pretty common.