Spells: Bard Aggro

[Hideousclaw]

lots of good evidence.

"Let bards be bards" - Hollowlung

[long.liam]

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

Always the same comments from you. It's getting old, as is this thread. Last post from here on out. Anyone else wants to contribute something worth reading, go for it.

There's no need for the antagonism dude. Just pointing that the "evidence" you posted is insufficient to make the changes you want. Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made. Anything you posted up to this point has been inconsistent and/or vague and unclear. It might be considered more reliable if someone had actually posted some actually parsing data to prove what the actual hate numbers were at that time and then what they became after a certain point, but you haven't seemed to have found that.

This is the only patch notes I could find that even remotely resembles anything relates to bard mechanics at all during the 2004-2005 time period:

"AUGUST 13, 2004
Patch:
This short update will correct a couple of issues with Bard functionality and resolve a stability problem.

Thanks for your patience."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20040813.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2004-2.html

"SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
Bard PBAoE spells will no longer damage targets that are moving, however any other spell effects from the PBAoE spell will still be applied to the targets as usual."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20040914.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2004-2.html

"JANUARY 26, 2005
Bard Chants should once again generate the correct amount of hate."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20050126.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2005-1.html

Of these 3 that I could find, only the last one says anything about a change in bard song hate. The way it's worded also suggest that It was broken at some point by some patch, most likely a very recent patch relative to this time period.

[long.liam]

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

There's no need for the antagonism dude. Just pointing that the "evidence" you posted is insufficient to make the changes you want. Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made. Anything you posted up to this point has been inconsistent and/or vague and unclear. It might be considered more reliable if someone had actually posted some actually parsing data to prove what the actual hate numbers were at that time and then what they became after a certain point, but you haven't seemed to have found that.

This is the only patch notes I could find that even remotely resembles anything relates to bard mechanics at all during the 2004-2005 time period:

"AUGUST 13, 2004
Patch:
This short update will correct a couple of issues with Bard functionality and resolve a stability problem.

Thanks for your patience."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20040813.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2004-2.html

"SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
Bard PBAoE spells will no longer damage targets that are moving, however any other spell effects from the PBAoE spell will still be applied to the targets as usual."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20040914.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2004-2.html

"JANUARY 26, 2005
Bard Chants should once again generate the correct amount of hate."
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20050126.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2005-1.html

Of these 3 that I could find, only the last one says anything about a change in bard song hate. The way it's worded also suggest that It was broken at some point by some patch, most likely a very recent patch relative to this time period.

These may also be relevant, but are also within P99's ERA.

"FEBRUARY 21, 2001
A team member has asked that we clarify the changes to the way hate is awarded in healing. The important point that may not have been clear below is that there is a cap on the amount of hate that can be awarded for any particular heal spell. For a target below level 51, no heal spell can generate more than 800 hate, regardless of the number of hitpoints healed. For targets level 51 or above, the cap is higher, but does not approach the total hitpoints of a fully buffed warrior.
"
- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20010221b.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2001-1.html

"MARCH 6, 2001

NPCs that are mesmerized or stunned will now only add a very small amount of hate when they see you cast beneficial spells on their enemies. Prior to this, they would add full hate when they saw you do this. This is why NPCs would always jump the cleric after breaking Mez.
Fixed a bug that would cause NPCs to add too much "temporary hate" when a player would sit down in front of them.
The maximum amount of "hate" that an NPC can add when witnessing a heal to targets above level 50 has been decreased substantially.
Hate from heals is also now calculated at a lesser number than the number of hitpoints healed. Previously, healing one hitpoint would cause one point of hate. Now, healing 3 hitpoints will cause 2 points of hate.
"

- http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20010306.html
- https://everquest.allakhazam.com/his...es-2001-1.html

[Ennewi]

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

Last Penultimate post

Perfect opportunity for an inside joke.

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

Just pointing that the "evidence" you posted is insufficient to make the changes you want.

https://project1999.com/index.php?pageid=about

Server Staff
Management
Nilbog Project Founder & Manager; Content Developer; Goblin
Rogean Project Manager; Server Administrator; Programmer

Development
Haynar Programmer
Alunova Content Developer
Telin Content Developer
Ropethunder Content Developer
long.liam Classic Arbiter

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

Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/a.../t-179088.html

No evidence required for change to the effectiveness of lifetaps.


https://project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19

Old 09-24-2010, 05:07 PM
Uthgaard Uthgaard is offline
VIP / Contributor

Uthgaard's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,446
Default
Just a reminder:

While a lot of you have been contributing a lot of bugs recently, which is awesome, we have a high standard of accuracy / evidence. While we don't need a congressional hearing about every bug fix, throwing us a link to something definitive from a waybacked site is the most helpful thing you can do, other than pointing our attention to the bug itself. It helps us make the change with confidence that we're doing the right thing.

Also, search the forums to see if your issue has already been addressed.

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

Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made. Anything you posted up to this point has been inconsistent and/or vague and unclear.

"Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences. In order to answer the how and why questions of historical analysis and research, historians need to gather all the possible evidence, vet it for bias and authenticity, understand the larger picture presented by these facts, and then make logical conclusions based on what they have learned."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proven.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

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

It might be considered more reliable if someone had actually posted some actually parsing data to prove what the actual hate numbers were at that time and then what they became after a certain point, but you haven't seemed to have found that.

A personal sentiment that needs to be supported with evidence, links to posts where a requirement of "substantially accurate evidence/parsing data" has been shown as the official position.

Alright, that about does it for bug reports personally. Good luck to the other posters and thanks to Dolalin for the search engine access; it was game-changing, quite literally.

[long.liam]

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

Perfect opportunity for an inside joke.



https://project1999.com/index.php?pageid=about





https://www.project1999.com/forums/a.../t-179088.html

No evidence required for change to the effectiveness of lifetaps.


https://project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19






"Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences. In order to answer the how and why questions of historical analysis and research, historians need to gather all the possible evidence, vet it for bias and authenticity, understand the larger picture presented by these facts, and then make logical conclusions based on what they have learned."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method






A personal sentiment that needs to be supported with evidence, links to posts where a requirement of "substantially accurate evidence/parsing data" has been shown as the official position.

Alright, that about does it for bug reports personally. Good luck to the other posters and thanks to Dolalin for the search engine access; it was game-changing, quite literally.

A personal sentiment that needs to be supported with evidence, links to posts where a requirement of "substantially accurate evidence/parsing data" has been shown as the official position.

- You literally posted a link that supports this position:
"we have a high standard of accuracy / evidence. While we don't need a congressional hearing about every bug fix, throwing us a link to something definitive from a waybacked site"

"Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences. In order to answer the how and why questions of historical analysis and research, historians need to gather all the possible evidence, vet it for bias and authenticity, understand the larger picture presented by these facts, and then make logical conclusions based on what they have learned."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

This is interesting information, but not really helpful. We are not historians. Just a bunch of amateur, random, weirdos trying figure out how the game worked 20+ years ago. In some cases It's simply not possible to figure those things out. The information may not exist in many cases. Trying to reverse engineer game mechanics from random posts from 20+ years ago is in exercise in futility. Even If a Rogean and Nilbog were to accept that you were right, the information posted so far hasn't really been that helpful for determining how bard aggro should work back in 1999. No definitive numbers for the hate caps on any bard songs, procs, etc. Just bunch of weirdos saying "their songs are a good taunt". Interesting but not helpful. What cap should be there be. Does it get higher with level? Does it matter which songs? Does it matter whether they are charming, healing? what numbers should it all be?

"No evidence required for change to the effectiveness of lifetaps."
- I don't really know enough about this to comment. In some cases changes are made , that may or may not be classic, to combat mass player use of exploits that were relatively unknown back when the game first released. This might be one of those cases. Either way I'm not really concerned with whether or not the dev's actually make a change only if the standards of evidence are actually upheld by the Community.

[long.liam]

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

A personal sentiment that needs to be supported with evidence, links to posts where a requirement of "substantially accurate evidence/parsing data" has been shown as the official position.

- You literally posted a link that supports this position:
"we have a high standard of accuracy / evidence. While we don't need a congressional hearing about every bug fix, throwing us a link to something definitive from a waybacked site"

"Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences. In order to answer the how and why questions of historical analysis and research, historians need to gather all the possible evidence, vet it for bias and authenticity, understand the larger picture presented by these facts, and then make logical conclusions based on what they have learned."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

This is interesting information, but not really helpful. We are not historians. Just a bunch of amateur, random, weirdos trying figure out how the game worked 20+ years ago. In some cases It's simply not possible to figure those things out. The information may not exist in many cases. Trying to reverse engineer game mechanics from random posts from 20+ years ago is in exercise in futility. Even If a Rogean and Nilbog were to accept that you were right, the information posted so far hasn't really been that helpful for determining how bard aggro should work back in 1999. No definitive numbers for the hate caps on any bard songs, procs, etc. Just bunch of weirdos saying "their songs are a good taunt". Interesting but not helpful. What cap should be there be. Does it get higher with level? Does it matter which songs? Does it matter whether they are charming, healing? what numbers should it all be?

"No evidence required for change to the effectiveness of lifetaps."
- I don't really know enough about this to comment. In some cases changes are made , that may or may not be classic, to combat mass player use of exploits that were relatively unknown back when the game first released. This might be one of those cases. Either way I'm not really concerned with whether or not the dev's actually make a change only if the standards of evidence are actually upheld by the Community.

Also, I would like to point out that you didn't really follow the directions on this one:
"congressional hearing about every bug fix, throwing us a link to something definitive from a waybacked site""
- 30 posts from randos is unnecessary and creates a huge amount clutter for dev's to sift through. One Definitive post from an official source would have been enough.

[FatMice]

So when are bards getting the ability to agro mobs again?

[Rygar]

If i'm not mistaken, I believe P99 implemented agro based on Torven's live testing years back which was really sophisticated. For those that dont know there is a literal hate meter which displays the point value of hate specific songs / procs / abilities / spells generate, he basically unpacked how actual agro values work in EQ.

I've really changed my mind around current live testing, lots of things in most old zones are untouched.

This seems to be a clear exception though, where current live agro values / mechanics were modified somewhere in 2004. I would argue it's more classic to revert the change or find a hybrid solution. Clearly SKs and Bards were agro machines during classic (as Ennewi repeatedly demonstrates in the mountain of evidence).

Please stop trolling the thread, it is ban worthy to do so.

[Moodie]

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

So when are bards getting the ability to agro mobs again?

[astuce999]

Ah yes, the July 14th, 2004 stealth bard aggro nerf patch. I was angry back then. And looking back on the quoted posts, a bit entitled, not to say asshole-ish.

cheers,

'Stuce