When are they Implementing the Charm Nerf?

[Tunabros]

didnt read lol

[-Catherin-]

I am going to say though that im pretty confident the only thing that was really kneecapping enchanters back then was the internet connection, and probably less powerful computers. Graphic stuttering and bad frame rate was actually a thing for a lot of people back then. These things are game over for enchanters. It just simply was not possible to do the things you see now solely because of that.

I played an enchanter then too. With today's advancements to internet and general knowledge of the game, I'm confident I would have been able to pull off what I can do now. It's going to be pretty unrealistic to believe we can ever confidently prove this either way though. And changes tend to be made on extremely strong evidence.

It could be argued that the low quality internet and processing power of those times is exactly why things need to be made artificially harder to mimic those issues, but that also inherently goes against the "vision."

I'd argue myself that the wiki itself is a huge violation to the "vision" as well, but you can't really put the cat back into the bag with that one because you can just find the info somewhere else these days.

[PatChapp]

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

I am going to say though that im pretty confident the only thing that was really kneecapping enchanters back then was the internet connection, and probably less powerful computers. Graphic stuttering and bad frame rate was actually a thing for a lot of people back then. These things are game over for enchanters. It just simply was not possible to do the things you see now solely because of that.

I played an enchanter then too. With today's advancements to internet and general knowledge of the game, I'm confident I would have been able to pull off what I can do now. It's going to be pretty unrealistic to believe we can ever confidently prove this either way though. And changes tend to be made on extremely strong evidence.

It could be argued that the low quality internet and processing power of those times is exactly why things need to be made artificially harder to mimic those issues, but that also inherently goes against the "vision."

I'd argue myself that the wiki itself is a huge violation to the "vision" as well, but you can't really put the cat back into the bag with that one because you can just find the info somewhere else these days.

I remember occasional 10minute zone loads and constant crashes, and I had a very early iteration of cable internet.

[sajbert]

I don't buy the internet connection argument. As an EU player latency on p99 is anything but good and back in 2000 I and many others here did have broadband connections.

I think it's fairly obvious that all the ins- and outs of charming weren't known about then. To look at a contemporary example, look at WoW Classic how people play the game today and how people played original WoW.

Thus whether or not it happened in original EQ isn't a relevant point to make, clearly the p99-team is not trying to simulate the first time experience. You'd have to remake the entire game.

Now as I understand the argument for the mechanics being wrong is rather weak. but perhaps I'm wrong. What I DO want to know is IF they're planning on making any MAJOR class change like this is that the P99 devs communicate with the players so that you know, maybe someone doesn't spend their hard earned plat on a chanter and whatever free time they have to level it up only to end up with something they didn't wish to play.

[loramin]

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

Now as I understand the argument for the mechanics being wrong is rather weak. but perhaps I'm wrong.

Just look at the bug thread: Dolalin (classic researcher extraordinaire) did some amazing research to show very clearly that there are faults in our current system.

[Duik]

How come a charmed shammy or cleric doesnt heal charmer, if needed? Too OP then or something else. A bit OT sorry but kinda related..

[MaCtastic]

"Enchanter. The primary focus of this art can be summed up by the name of the arcane order to which it belongs - enchantment. Spells are crafted to enchant people, places and things. An Enchanter can charm beings and make them fight for a new master, or magically enhance the capabilities of a sword-welding warrior. She even has some proficiency in offensive spells." - players manual, Everquest Trilogy, printed in 2000.

Seems pretty odd that one of the three things highlighted about the class in the (classic) players manual is charming - yet people consider it not classic. It's starting to feel like a witch hunt..

[loramin]

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

"Enchanter. The primary focus of this art can be summed up by the name of the arcane order to which it belongs - enchantment. Spells are crafted to enchant people, places and things. An Enchanter can charm beings and make them fight for a new master, or magically enhance the capabilities of a sword-welding warrior. She even has some proficiency in offensive spells." - players manual, Everquest Trilogy, printed in 2000.

Seems pretty odd that one of the three things highlighted about the class in the (classic) players manual is charming - yet people consider it not classic. It's starting to feel like a witch hunt..

Did you play in classic? Enchanters did charm: no one is saying otherwise. But they 100% did not charm in groups in any major capacity, and even when soloing it was a highly risky activity, not the safest/most efficient path to leveling.

Again, you don't have to have played an Enchanter on live to remember this: you just had to group with them. And if you grouped at all, you undoubtedly did, as they were still a highly desired class in groups even without charm.

P.S. And also, using the EQ manual as a basis for ... anything really, is a pretty terrible way to make an argument. Those things were rife with falsehoods.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

P.S. And also, using the EQ manual as a basis for ... anything really, is a pretty terrible way to make an argument. Those things were rife with falsehoods.

Loramin's correct. I wouldn't trust the official printed material to be honest. I did a post a while ago showing just some of the mistakes in the Kunark Strategy Guide 1.0 I found in a box at home.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=361855

It's pretty bad.

[Jibartik]

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

it was a highly risky activity, not the safest/most efficient path to leveling.

no people were just bad then it wasnt risky people just sucked.