Enchanter OP impact poll

[G13]

There is no way OP can prove charm effectiveness from Classic era as opposed to now

For one, enchanters back in the classic era stacked INT. Not Charisma. Back then everyone assumed CHA was a useless stat. The meta was INT mana, mana, mana (always need more mana)

"Everyone knows" this

By that fact alone it's virtually impossible to prove his claims

As someone else mentioned in this thread, the tactic is a never ending whine assault until the GMs don't want to listen to him anymore and give in

Maybe if he called the spell racist he's have some success

[azxten]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no way OP can prove charm effectiveness from Classic era as opposed to now

For one, enchanters back in the classic era stacked INT. Not Charisma. Back then everyone assumed CHA was a useless stat. The meta was INT mana, mana, mana (always need more mana)

"Everyone knows" this

By that fact alone it's virtually impossible to prove his claims

As someone else mentioned in this thread, the tactic is a never ending whine assault until the GMs don't want to listen to him anymore and give in

Maybe if he called the spell racist he's have some success

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitew...ChantGuide.htm

Charisma - The second school supports raising CHA as high as possible for two reasons. Firstly, many believe that high CHA has a profound impact on charm durations, stun-locking, fear durations, and mezzing. Nearly all enchanters give credit that it does help, especially in charming scenarios. The second reason is that most Charisma items do not have an armor class raise attached. At higher levels, enchanters start steering toward AC/HP/Mana items, and many INT items carry those stats, especially AC. My research has proven to me that CHA has a profound impact on charming, without a doubt. Mezzing is slightly impacted by it, as my mezzing resists are always lower with high charisma, but only barely lower, so much that I had to cast it 100 times and keep track of the resists to be able to tell. I haven't tested it with stunning and fearing yet... that's next on the list.

No, it was quite well known CHA impacted charm. Tired arguments are tired.

In fact if people would stop making up bullshit and claiming I'm lying about everything and instead go back to page 2 and read the actual links provided you'll see people knew potentially even more than the average P99 player does even with the wiki. You'll see discussions about mem blur efficiency and so on. It's a stupid and tired argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter during live and that's why they weren't overpowered.

Charm - Here it is. The big dog. The secret to uber-soloing. When you cast this, the target mob (max level 25) becomes your pet to command. NPC mobs hit much harder, have more hitpoints, and basically outweigh all PC pets in every way. If two mobs fight (one as your pet) and you nuke the enemy once, your pet should win the fight, though almost dead. Then you kill your pet for full experience. No class can touch our ability to solo with this method. Dropping double-yellow mobs with two bubbles of mana is basically mind-blowing, and double-blues can be great xp still. It's also extremely hazardous. I really don't feel we have the ability to charm solo until the Fifth Circle, when you have our entire spell-line available. If you insist on trying it now, you'll just have to skip ahead and find a work-around to not having Mesmerization, which I feel is critical to be successful. Also, you need a massive Charisma. I'm talking about 170+. At 182, I'm semi-comfortable with Charm-Solo, and I still prefer Kamikaze-Solo.

What? Is that an old Angelfire Enchanter page clearing spelling out CHA for charming and also clearly describing exactly how charm solo works on P99? I thought no one knew about any of this? What else do they say about charming?

Should you choose to perform crowd control in groups, solo kamikaze-style, kite (or reverse) with a steady partner, or truly show nerves of steel with daring charm-solos, you have seen the avenues lain before the enchanter, and gotten a feel for the spell lines required for each, as well as learned to manage your eight spell slots well.

Charming solo was very dangerous. It could pay off in experience if well geared and played well. However, it's also noteworthy they don't talk about Charm soloing in dungeons for experience like happens on P99. Their examples are all outdoors. This is nothing like P99 by the way. People try to claim that "you should try it" become saying Enchanter is easy. Bull fucking shit. Enchanter is brain dead easy to charm solo on P99. There is nothing daring or dangerous about it except at higher levels when doing named camps that no other class can touch solo.

Charm-Solo - Okay, you've patiently waited all this time because of my recommendations, but enough is enough, and you want to try charm-soloing out. Get CHA gear and get your CHA to 170+. If you think I'm kidding, try these methods without it. Below 150 is suicide, and below 170 is difficult at best. Let me explain in the simplest terms what the goal of charm soloing is:

That's odd my P99 Enchanter is below 170 CHA and was well below that at lower levels but Charm worked just fine and was far from difficult to use for soloing.

Charm-Solo - Tashani is a beautiful addition to Charm-Soloing, and one you will love. Keeping Color Shift instead of Flux memmed will buy you an extra two seconds for regaining control, though it's typically not needed--during charm-solo you want the faster casting time of Color Flux. Stun-Locking can be used to make sure your pet wins the fight when it's close, but I recommend against that because Charm breaking right after you stun can make regaining control very difficult. Just nuke it if it looks close. Soon you will have a longer casting time charm spell, and then Color Shift will be mandatory.

Strange. I still charm solo without ever using stun. I just let mobs hit me and cast Charm right through it. Wonder why people needed to use stun in classic. Channeling?

The crazy part is that one on one either of these mobs would have slaughtered me if I tried to fight them one on one with no pet--but I can take both of them out without breaking a sweat, right? Wrong. While the ease you dispatch mobs with is amazing, when things go wrong it can go really wrong. When charm broke, what if Root broke? That's two mobs beating on me now. What if Color Flux resisted? Not going to get Charm off while getting beaten on--or what if Color Flux on gets one of them stunned? What if the second Charm resisted? Getting beaten again. What if the initial mez bounces? I'm stuck dealing with a very aggro mob and have no pet.

You certainly will get Charm off while getting beaten on when playing on P99. In fact on my Enchanter I would regularly be getting hit by 5 mobs and still cast mez or charm right through it. It's so reliable it's a joke to claim live was anything like this.

Like I've always said, P99 channeling makes Enchanter OP. In actual live Enchanter died a shit load simply due to channeling chance. You couldn't just stand there in melee casting long spells like Charm and expect it to work. Just like someone said earlier in thread, casting a 6 second DOT in melee with an experience giving mob, and succeeding more often than not is a glaring problem with P99's classic nature.

The argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter is tired and proven false. People knew about CHA. They knew exactly how to Charm solo. It just didn't work well due to the risk of death from failing channeling and therefore was also mostly limited to outdoor zones where you would have SoW/JBoots to run away due to unlucky rolls.

Group-Tactics - Your role in groups is clearly defined in this point. After the buffing guidelines above, you have two real jobs: First, you must do crowd control, of course. Then you either Tashani/Tepid Deeds (which has an amazing impact on the fight), or if a single mob stun-lock when mana is surplused. Tepid Deeds uses 100 mana, while stun-locking for two "rounds" uses 120 mana. It is unlikely the stun-locking will go past two rounds (the mob will die by then) and the tanks will have taken practically no damage.

I wonder why not even a single time does this page discuss using a charmed pet in a group? I think we all know why. It's because pets, and charmed pets even more so, acted insane in dungeons for most of classic. No group would ever want a charmed pet anywhere near them.

I guess no one in classic was smart enough to figure out you could charm a backstabbing mob and just sit there in a group practically AFK since Charm almost never breaks even with low CHA and out damage every other class. No one knew!

Just like when early guilds were zerging Naggy with 100+ players and binding in his lair. Not a single Enchanter ever thought to just charm a mob and sit back while it soloed a dragon with a cleric to CH it. What a totally insane a complicated strategy that clearly was completely possible on live but no one was smart enough to try.

[Baler]

OP is a hater, I mean... Enchanter is classicly one of the most powerful classes in everquest. This trend continues not only through classic, kunark and velious. In luclin and Planes of Power they're even stronger. Later during and after omens of war they're so strong they can technically raid tank with the right buff loadout.

The part that's missing for many young enchanters however is it takes some skill to play the class to it's fullest. Enchanters wear cloth armour, so their AC is nothing to brag about. This gets a bit better in velious but not enough for the avg enchanter to do god level solo kills. An enchanter with some BiS velious raid gear, of ****ing course will do amazing on P99. HOWEVER compared to later Eras, calling them OP is a far shot.

[Snortles Chortles]

gonna need a more qualified opinion
(LOL)

[G13]

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

https://www.angelfire.com/rpg/whitew...ChantGuide.htm



No, it was quite well known CHA impacted charm. Tired arguments are tired.

In fact if people would stop making up bullshit and claiming I'm lying about everything and instead go back to page 2 and read the actual links provided you'll see people knew potentially even more than the average P99 player does even with the wiki. You'll see discussions about mem blur efficiency and so on. It's a stupid and tired argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter during live and that's why they weren't overpowered.

Again, the majority of players that PLAYED, (not wrote obscure angelfire guides nobody read back then) stacked INT. Chanters were mezing and buffing back then. 99% of enchanters back then stacked INT. Everyone knows this.

What? Is that an old Angelfire Enchanter page clearing spelling out CHA for charming and also clearly describing exactly how charm solo works on P99? I thought no one knew about any of this? What else do they say about charming?

Nobody back then probably read that. There weren't things readily available like wikis. We're talking 20 years ago. Again, 20 years ago enchanters were stacking INT. Maybe there was a cry in the wilderness, but that doesn't prove anything.

Charming solo was very dangerous. It could pay off in experience if well geared and played well. However, it's also noteworthy they don't talk about Charm soloing in dungeons for experience like happens on P99. Their examples are all outdoors. This is nothing like P99 by the way. People try to claim that "you should try it" become saying Enchanter is easy. Bull fucking shit. Enchanter is brain dead easy to charm solo on P99. There is nothing daring or dangerous about it except at higher levels when doing named camps that no other class can touch solo.

You're trying to validate your claims based upon an angelfire page that nobody even read back then and it doesn't PROVE anything. Get a grip.

That's odd my P99 Enchanter is below 170 CHA and was well below that at lower levels but Charm worked just fine and was far from difficult to use for soloing.

You don't keep your pet when charm soloing. Especially when leveling. You don't need it hold for very long.

Strange. I still charm solo without ever using stun. I just let mobs hit me and cast Charm right through it. Wonder why people needed to use stun in classic. Channeling?

Channeling is a skill with skill ups. It's not far fetched to believe the higher your skill at channeling the better your ability to cast a spell through combat. That's the point. Again, you have proved nothing. Everything is conjecture based upon a bias against the spell. Every argument against you is a bias for the spell. There simply isn't anything concrete that proves charm wasn't as reliable back then as it is now. Believe me, I've checked and it always comes back to the differences between playstyles, knowledge and meta NOW as opposed to 20 years ago.

You certainly will get Charm off while getting beaten on when playing on P99. In fact on my Enchanter I would regularly be getting hit by 5 mobs and still cast mez or charm right through it. It's so reliable it's a joke to claim live was anything like this.

Yes and you should be able to get it off

Like I've always said, P99 channeling makes Enchanter OP. In actual live Enchanter died a shit load simply due to channeling chance. You couldn't just stand there in melee casting long spells like Charm and expect it to work. Just like someone said earlier in thread, casting a 6 second DOT in melee with an experience giving mob, and succeeding more often than not is a glaring problem with P99's classic nature.

Have you ever watched a good enchanter play the class? They don't rely on their channeling skill to keep things locked down

The argument that no one knew how to play Enchanter is tired and proven false. People knew about CHA. They knew exactly how to Charm solo. It just didn't work well due to the risk of death from failing channeling and therefore was also mostly limited to outdoor zones where you would have SoW/JBoots to run away due to unlucky rolls.

It has not been proven false. You are in error if you believe that "nobody knew how to play an enchanter back then". The point is they played the class DIFFERENTLY then they do now. Stop being so pig headed.

I wonder why not even a single time does this page discuss using a charmed pet in a group? I think we all know why. It's because pets, and charmed pets even more so, acted insane in dungeons for most of classic. No group would ever want a charmed pet anywhere near them.

You have this weird all or nothing thinking about everything. Just because it wasn't discussed on some obscure angelfire page does not automatically lead to your biased conclusion that "we all know". Stop with the mental gymnastics and childlike attempts at manipulation.

I guess no one in classic was smart enough to figure out you could charm a backstabbing mob and just sit there in a group practically AFK since Charm almost never breaks even with low CHA and out damage every other class. No one knew!

The reality is we won't ever know. There is simply no way to prove it. You can keep trying but it's a pointless endeavor. We're talking about dozens of servers with thousands of players on each server. All that data in regards to how each individual person played their respective class is lost in time.

Just like when early guilds were zerging Naggy with 100+ players and binding in his lair. Not a single Enchanter ever thought to just charm a mob and sit back while it soloed a dragon with a cleric to CH it. What a totally insane a complicated strategy that clearly was completely possible on live but no one was smart enough to try.

Pure speculation and flawed childlike reasoning

Your perspective is completely skewed by this need to nerf a class and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself

[azxten]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, the majority of players that PLAYED, (not wrote obscure angelfire guides nobody read back then) stacked INT. Chanters were mezing and buffing back then. 99% of enchanters back then stacked INT. Everyone knows this.





Nobody back then probably read that. There weren't things readily available like wikis. We're talking 20 years ago. Again, 20 years ago enchanters were stacking INT. Maybe there was a cry in the wilderness, but that doesn't prove anything.





You're trying to validate your claims based upon an angelfire page that nobody even read back then and it doesn't PROVE anything. Get a grip.



You don't keep your pet when charm soloing. Especially when leveling. You don't need it hold for very long.



Channeling is a skill with skill ups. It's not far fetched to believe the higher your skill at channeling the better your ability to cast a spell through combat. That's the point. Again, you have proved nothing. Everything is conjecture based upon a bias against the spell. Every argument against you is a bias for the spell. There simply isn't anything concrete that proves charm wasn't as reliable back then as it is now. Believe me, I've checked and it always comes back to the differences between playstyles, knowledge and meta NOW as opposed to 20 years ago.



Yes and you should be able to get it off



Have you ever watched a good enchanter play the class? They don't rely on their channeling skill to keep things locked down



It has not been proven false. You are in error if you believe that "nobody knew how to play an enchanter back then". The point is they played the class DIFFERENTLY then they do now. Stop being so pig headed.





You have this weird all or nothing thinking about everything. Just because it wasn't discussed on some obscure angelfire page does not automatically lead to your biased conclusion that "we all know". Stop with the mental gymnastics and childlike attempts at manipulation.



The reality is we won't ever know. There is simply no way to prove it. You can keep trying but it's a pointless endeavor. We're talking about dozens of servers with thousands of players on each server. All that data in regards to how each individual person played their respective class is lost in time.



Pure speculation and flawed childlike reasoning

Your perspective is completely skewed by this need to nerf a class and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself

Sorry channeling is way too successful and plays right into Enchanter charm being OP. Accept it. Evidence already provided.

10 year old P99 thread on Charm which has a FOH guild post quoted which is now lost

https://www.project1999.com/forums/a...p/t-35049.html
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/90145-post124.html

I have been using charm for many years in much the same way I use it now. Before any expansions were released, enchanters were soloing the ghoul lord and fire giants area with charmed pets. 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. 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. The only problem with Velious and Luclin was that there were not many areas where charm soloing was much more effecient then grouping. So most enchanters ignored the ability.

Exactly as I've stated. Classic Enchanter was not as OP as Velious Enchanter. It was a very gradual ramp up in power. Note they never mention using pets in groups until Kunark. They call out risk of charm only being trivial with Velious level gear. Fits with earlier quotes from Angelfire page on needing 170+ CHA minimum to have some level of success.

Back before kunark, we would go solo fire giants for the thrill. IT was damn scary because a charm break at the wrong time meant about an 80% chance of death. With POP, a charm break at the wrong time means you cast the following spells: wom, run til spell gems refresh, mez your pet, retarget the prey, cast root. If it knocks your rune off, pop eldritch rune and root. ZERO risk. none, nada. You have to be a complete and utter idiot to die to a situation like that.

Exactly. Using charm was very risky pre-Kunark and things like fire giants would more often than not result in death if charm broke. Their description of the trivial nature of charm in POP sounds more like classic era P99. Oh charm broke? Whatever, just channel whatever spell you want right through the melee. Channeling is the key to why Enchanter couldn't charm easily especially in dungeons where they would be getting hit and had no space to kite for recasts.

Enchanter COULD do certain things but it was very risky in the sense that a few random rolls could guarantee death in just a few seconds. That doesn't happen much on P99 in my experience. The tank can always pull aggro off the Enchanter. The Enchanter can always channel in melee. The risk side of the risk v reward equation is missing.

I cast this on a Dark Ritualist in the MM tower the other day for grins, and it was lasting upwards of 5+ minutes. To give you an idea of how long this lasts, two of my buds had time to duel, the loser got rezzed, and then medded to full all w hile the pet remained charmed. This wasn't a one-time shot either. I've noticed this routinely lasting for 4 to 5 minutes before breaking (though I've sometimes had it break after 20 seconds LOL) Not only that, in the new patch as of today we will get a message when Charm is going to break. WOOHOO!!!!! No more sudden surprises when that Hill Giant or Seafury is about to turn on you The run of chanter twinks with each patch continues.

Again, talking about how Charm was getting better in 2001, people are starting to play Enchanter now. This old P99 thread is fascinating because it's a bunch of Enchanters crying that OP Charm was nerfed and trying to prove it was more powerful. It sounds like Charm was eventually mostly returned to it's overpowered state after being nerfed in the past.

I suspect this happened, based on that thread, because people were able to prove "charm duration" was different for live than P99 had nerfed it to. This still ignores the channeling side of the equation though. They likely proved duration was unclassically nerfed to be too sporadic and the other side who wanted Charm nerfed was unable to pin down what exactly made charm non-classic.

It's channeling...

Channeling remains the elephant in the room and is most often referenced in classic era posts by Enchanters when mentioning "dying immediately" and "charm risk." Charming in a confined space was accepting a high percentage chance of a guaranteed death and this isn't true on P99.

The FOH poster even hits that nail on the head when they mention Velious had more spread out mobs and larger zones which allowed Enchanters to charm more effectively than classic/Kunark.

Why are bigger zones better for charm? Channeling. You had space to root mobs. You had space to run around. You could step out of zone and jboot/sow and actually use run speed to kite in Velious areas like Kael.

[Baler]

azxten Why are you constantly making, Let's nerf p99 threads?

I mean, I just came back from a long break and here you are, right on queue with the. X class is OP.

[azxten]

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

OP is a hater, I mean... Enchanter is classicly one of the most powerful classes in everquest. This trend continues not only through classic, kunark and velious. In luclin and Planes of Power they're even stronger. Later during and after omens of war they're so strong they can technically raid tank with the right buff loadout.

The part that's missing for many young enchanters however is it takes some skill to play the class to it's fullest. Enchanters wear cloth armour, so their AC is nothing to brag about. This gets a bit better in velious but not enough for the avg enchanter to do god level solo kills. An enchanter with some BiS velious raid gear, of ****ing course will do amazing on P99. HOWEVER compared to later Eras, calling them OP is a far shot.

False. In fact POP is when Enchanter charm gets nerfed as it had reached levels of absurdity currently seen on P99 from the start of classic. You can see classic era info of people crying when charm gets nerfed in POP.

It's exactly the same situation as P99 classic as well. Even the same people saying, you really didn't think being able to out damage entire groups was OP and needed to be nerfed?

This didn't happen until Velious and later and then was nerfed in POP. Classic Enchanter is literally a trash tier class that did not charm backstabbing mobs for groups EVER. Kunark Enchanter is a powerful class but not ridiculously overpowered due to the still existing risk of charming in tight areas and summoning mobs. Velious Enchanter becomes overpowered because the zone design allowed them to go into the highest level zones and no longer have that guaranteed chance of death due to inability to channel. Then once AAs are introduced Enchanter finally becomes similarly overpowered as classic P99 era.

Again it's not rocket science. All the evidence points to channeling being the issue and that is why charm usefulness was so heavily tied to the area and mobs it was being used on. Confined areas and dangerous mobs made it something that could work occasionally but more often than not would get you killed. It was just a roll of the dice for that "perfect" charm session in a bad spot with hard mobs. On P99 that roll of the dice is stacked in the Enchanters favor due to channeling being stupidly easy.

However, there are multiple proven bugs with Enchanter outlined earlier and all supported with evidence. Charm is just one. Saying over and over that there is no evidence doesn't make it true.

As I've said, over and over, just fix channeling and Enchanter will be fixed as well. No one should be arguing that channeling on P99 is classic. A level 1 channeling 50%+ of the time isn't classic and it has a HUGE impact on the difficulty of the game.

[azxten]

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

azxten Why are you constantly making, Let's nerf p99 threads?

I mean, I just came back from a long break and here you are, right on queue with the. X class is OP.

You mean why am I constantly talking about making P99 more classic? Because the game is pretty fucking boring right now with all the known non-classic mechanics. I'd like a return to a more difficult and social EQ and so I'm going about proving why P99 is so trivial.

What I find fascinating is that on something like channeling where people like you have always argued there is no evidence, I'm making it up, etc and then we finally do get hard evidence from a client compile and no one cares. The bug report just slides down and no one gives a shit that a core mechanic is basically on easy mode on P99 affecting almost every aspect of the game.

Multiple times now I bug report something I just know isn't classic and people cry and then the evidence comes out and everyone scurries away like roaches and the thread dies so I bring it up again on occasion.

This has happened so many times now that we have a list of Enchanter bugs needing SOMETHING. A word from the devs. A fix. A rebuttal with actual evidence to the contrary of the evidence provided.

Others in this thread have said the same thing. Hard evidence bug reports are being ignored for Enchanter but other classes like Druid get shit on all the time when flimsy evidence is put forward about their mechanics. I'm not the only one wondering why Enchanter bug reports are left in the dust bin as it continues to be the most OP class on P99 and completely non-classic in its ability and risks.

[Baler]

It's 2021 not 1999. see G13's posts that people played differently back then.

There is no "fixing" Channeling. You would have to overhaul the entire emulator code and tick system to accomplish this. And being on a server that favors nerfing to 'solve' problems. You shouldn't expect this to be resolved.

As G13 said enchanter's back in 1999 stacked INT, not CHA. Information like archives, comment sections, memories and the p99 wiki have ultimately curved the avg players direction they go flying. Like opening flood gates it can't be closed.

Another issue you're facing, Are those enchanter charm issues BUG related to the classic everquest environment? It's unlikely they will ever reproduce bugs perfectly to match live's classic gameplay.

Please don't get me wrong, I want pure 1:1 everquest classic. it's a dream but I can't help but feel frustrated for you with these threads you make about these topics. I count the QOL Blessings we have rather than dispute their impact on the classic gameplay. Because it's Project 1999, not because I don't want pure classic.

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

Others in this thread have said the same thing. Hard evidence bug reports are being ignored for Enchanter but other classes like Druid get shit on all the time when flimsy evidence is put forward about their mechanics. I'm not the only one wondering why Enchanter bug reports are left in the dust bin as it continues to be the most OP class on P99 and completely non-classic in its ability and risks.

getting evidence to the attention of the server owners is not an easy task. Example, after years of evidence they fixed skill spell specialization. I know this because I started the the last bug report thread about it, that finally got the ball rolling on fixing it. I know just how 'dumb' it can feel to try and shove evidence in their face hoping they fix it.