Enchanter charm isn't classic, we all know this

[Tecmos Deception]

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

I really don't understand the obsession with data for charm. Is it not clear that it's so incredibly strong that it has had a large and negative impact on the community for a long time now? Should be a common sense change under the "Vision of classic" clause.

Don't care if values are 100% accurate, it's destructive and wouldn't have been allowed to have the impact that it has now in era 1999.

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.

[Dolalin]

To be fair, charisma has such a low effect if it works how I think it does in eqemu source (100cha would only be a 9% resist decrease per tick?), it's probably within the margin of error for those tests.

[Tecmos Deception]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=92423

It was quite a while ago, but Loraen tested that even at 200->250 there was a noticable change in charm durations, and suspected that it would be twice as big a change up to the 200 suspected softcap.


I'd like to again draw the charm naysayers' attention to Loraen's results compared to the results of this 58 enchanter on live. Loraen only has 2-minute and under averages WITH tash against a level 53 mob. -7 mob, with tash, shorter durations than the 58 guy on a -8 mob without tash. It was only when fighting a VERY low blue (it was the minimum blue con for a level 60, -14 levels!), with tash, that Loraen had a big average charm duration.


Believe it or not, I'd even be willing to concede, with just a little more data from here about low-blue/high-green charm durations, that those need a nerf. But a level 50 keeping an imp charmed for a whole naggy on here is definitely not out of line with the data we were just seeing from live, classic-era charm tests. I mean, Loraen was seeing 7-minute average durations on a -14 with tash only, compared to Wandatin at 58 charming a high-green seafury and no tash but only having 2-3 minute average. But still. That's not really conclusive even then without more info from p99 imo.

[Mushman]

Exactly my point Tecmos, thank you. Seems like a common sense classic change to me.

If in 1999 so much content was consumed by so few on the back of charm it wouldn't have been allowed to exist. It goes against what EQ is at it's core.

Not sure if it's code, experience, bandwidth or what but the power that charm gives isn't "classic" no matter what.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

Exactly my point Tecmos, thank you. Seems like a common sense classic change to me.

If in 1999 so much content was consumed by so few on the back of charm it wouldn't have been allowed to exist. It goes against what EQ is at it's core.

Not sure if it's code, experience, bandwidth or what but the power that charm gives isn't "classic" no matter what.

You're getting it backwards.

There's "the classic experience" and there's "classic mechanics." The former is what the game "felt" like, which varies from person to person, and involved things like being excited about ingame weddings, dying in kithicor and losing your corpse because you didnt have a wiki map, thinking agi and dex were good stat choices for a rogue, mispelling everything on purpose when playing an ogre/trolll, etc. The latter means how the mechanics function, regardless of whether people knew how they functioned and therefore were able to take full advantage of them.

The staff here generally have been pursuing "classic mechanics" more than "the classic experience." Nilbog definitely was talking about it in this way given the context of the quote I gave you.

[Mushman]

I understand lots of people enjoy the powerful, high risk-reward style of it. Put me on that list as well, it's a lot of fun. That said, it isn't classic. It's a "win button" condition you can execute with some knowledge and practice that nothing else comes close to. Do you really think it's in the vision of classic to have that kind of power behind charm?

[Tecmos Deception]

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

I understand lots of people enjoy the powerful, high risk-reward style of it. Put me on that list as well, it's a lot of fun. That said, it isn't classic. It's a "win button" condition you can execute with some knowledge and practice that nothing else comes close to. Do you really think it's in the vision of classic to have that kind of power behind charm?

Is it what the original devs envisioned? No. But what you think "the vision of classic" means isn't what p99 is pursuing. Neither is what the original eq devs pictured in their heads during development. So it's pretty irrelevant.

[derpcake2]

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

Is it not clear that it's so incredibly strong that it has had a large and negative impact on the community for a long time now?

no

[A1551]

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

I really don't understand the obsession with data for charm. Is it not clear that it's so incredibly strong that it has had a large and negative impact on the community for a long time now? Should be a common sense change under the "Vision of classic" clause.

Don't care if values are 100% accurate, it's destructive and wouldn't have been allowed to have the impact that it has now in era 1999.

This is roughly the best argument against charm as it currently stands. I actually agree with it to an extent, if i were in charge i might increase the risk of charming to compensate for how much better and more reliable internet connections are these days. But i aint lol, and evidence would seem to point to it likely being a non classic change. And you could start making that argument about a lot of things. Again, p99 aint trying to fix eq, just recreate it as it was.

The obsession with evidence is that if it existed showing charm was op here in a not classic way its get fixed. That evidence does not seem to exist (in fact what we do have seems to point to the opposite). Theres plenty of eqemus out there that tried to fix eq in various ways if thats your thing.

So, what exactly is the large and negative impact on the community of charm? That isnt rhetorical, i clearly see charm is an issue, but i think if you wanted a non classic change in the name of “classic vision” youd have to make a reallly strong case that it is community destroying in a large and impactful way that didnt exist in classic. I see myself eyerolling at enchanters and being annoyed at them for farming items and having camps and such alone or with a partner, but i dont think that raises to the level of community destroying youd probably need to persuade the staff. That just sounds like a frustratingly classic aspect of eq to me.

[Mushman]

I'm not that knowledgeable about it but I thought historically they have made some changes for the sake of playability that steered away from classic mechanical values. If it's a case by case basis i just think they would be making everyone's experience more enjoyable and "classic" with reconsidering how charm performs currently.