Enchanter is #1 solo class? What is this madness

[loramin]

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

In that thread nilbog acknowledged taking note of it and not being against it.

I read it diagonally (saved it for later, very interesting) but it seems like it is based on the notion that different spells levels are treated differently for resists and channelling and none of that stuff seem to be implemented on p99 so there's no real point of implementing something based on a layer that also has yet to be implemented.

I did notice on live back then I was getting a lot more resists in general. I was quadding raptors mid/late 50s and it wasn't rare to get snare resists. On here since I dinged 45 or so I barely get any resists at all until mobs become 51+ basically. That may be tied to the same system (higher level spells getting more resists).

That system may be a prerequisite to fixing a lot of magic related issues and I'm not sure how well documented it is?

also, I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the OPs conclusions in that thread but the code is the code.

I get that true classic channelling is hard, and if Nilbog doesn't have the info to properly implement it, I can't fault him for that.

But again, what I just can't understand is ... if you're not going to implement classic channeling ... why not at least implement classically difficult channeling? Why keep things unclassically easy?

Even if we never get truly classic channeling, at any point over the past two decades Nilbog could have made the server more like live if he'd just:

Originally Posted by Loramin

changed a single number (the channeling rate)

[Goregasmic]

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

I get that true classic channelling is hard, and if Nilbog doesn't have the info to properly implement it, I can't fault him for that.

But again, what I just can't understand is ... if you're not going to implement classic channeling ... why not at least implement classically difficult channeling? Why keep things unclassically easy?

Even if we never get truly classic channeling, at any point over the past two decades Nilbog could have made the server more like live if he'd just:

My point was iif he implements this now he'd have to fudge the numbers and if he plans on fixing spell impacts that would be double the work since he'd have to take that fudged version out and the reimplement as the proposed version. I don't think he has that kind of time, if I was him I wouldn't bother.

[Snaggles]

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

We have any actual numbers on the channeling issue?

Fetter is 1.8 seconds. The epic is an 800hp rune. If you refresh it every root no way the average mob is going to chew though rune let alone get a lucky bash in.

Warriors without any channeling skill can get totem clicks on VS so long as Rune5 is still up when they are clicking.

(Unless I’m missing the context of the discussion, which is likely)

[sammoHung]

I have a 60 of both. Enchanter dies more often than the shaman, who rarely ever dies.

The shaman has ultimate survivability, but the enchanter has ultimate capability.

There's camps I have easily done on enchanter that just don't work for shaman - because shaman just can't kill fast enough. A simple example is NG in Sebilis. If you get a wizard or shaman as the pather, shaman doesn't have a reliable way to interrupt gate. If the pather gates, shaman is fuxxed. Or somewhere that requires pacify to be safe, like Disco or ABC.

Conversely: there are camps that I prefer to attempt on my shaman simply because there's a lack of mobs to charm - or because it's much safer with shaman (like King Tranix area in Sol B). If I can camp out in the armorer room in ABC, it's an easy low-effort camp for a shaman. Enchanter requires charming a krup that might break and might wind up in death. Also, enchanter can't tank Lodizal. I also find A4 in PoM way easier on a shaman.

I also have a Necro, and then there's a 3rd set of camps that I much prefer on my Necro to either of the other two. (Velks frenzy, for instance... I can just do it faster and safer on a Necro than the other two)

[Potus]

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

In classic charm was far, far less powerful (and safe), so Verant giving Enchanters C made perfect sense: classic Enchanters were primarily a group class.

Verant had no way of knowing that Nilbog would greatly reduce the difficulty of charming on his recreation server years later.

Literally just read an old thread from 2021 where you kept telling people who played Mages in 1999 to post evidence that the class isn't the same. And here you are saying this.

So where's the evidence?

[Goregasmic]

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

Literally just read an old thread from 2021 where you kept telling people who played Mages in 1999 to post evidence that the class isn't the same. And here you are saying this.

So where's the evidence?

If the claims about lull and channelling are right you basically can hardly lull anything and getting a stun/root off will be a lot harder. The whole channelling thing makes it that you'll probably also think twice before hasting/torching a pet because it is already hard enough to recover from a 51+ hasted mob quadding you.

Also, I have no proof but I feel spell resists in general might be lower than they should be on P99 so that would be another layer of pain.

[loramin]

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

Literally just read an old thread from 2021 where you kept telling people who played Mages in 1999 to post evidence that the class isn't the same. And here you are saying this.

So where's the evidence?

Huh? Could you at least provide a link to whatever it is I'm supposed to defend myself against, and maybe your (specific) objection to it? I've literally written 10+k posts here, and I don't have them all memorized.

[Snaggles]

25 years ago our ISP’s and computers were trash. Players were younger on average without 25 years of learning/fixating on a game. They didn’t all have a cleric or bot cleric a bud could log into for a click.

EQ people are different these days, regardless of coding. Back then the average person didn’t use charm in groups either. If we could time travel back, outside buying some stock and special cars, I expect we would mostly find OG players (and ourselves) to be dim and soft.

[Potus]

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

Huh? Could you at least provide a link to whatever it is I'm supposed to defend myself against, and maybe your (specific) objection to it? I've literally written 10+k posts here, and I don't have them all memorized.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=395701

[Tann]

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

Literally just read an old thread from 2021 where you kept telling people who played Mages in 1999 to post evidence that the class isn't the same. And here you are saying this.

So where's the evidence?

That's the neat part, there isn't any, just memories <3