Mage pets

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please post some kind of proof, and less find and feels.

The proof is the delta. Again, it's like arguing for how classic combat bind wounds was, when no one remembers live being like that. Or like remembering bards doing all of OOT. Bard AoE kiting was 100% a classic mechanic, but Bards doing almost every mob in the zone? Not so much.

P99 is a very, very good emulation. It gets so many mechanics, either perfectly correct, or very close. People who know much more about these mechanics, people like Teppler and all the truly great researchers, have carefully examined the classic research and done their best to make things classic here.

But if something is WILDLY different here, and common sense won't let you explain it away with "people were dumb" ... again, I think the guy from 99 wouldn't say "you're so much smarter than me", he'd say "this isn't the EQ I know."

[derpcake2]

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

The proof is the delta. Again, it's like arguing for how classic combat bind wounds was, when no one remembers live being like that. Or like remembering bards doing all of OOT. Bard AoE kiting was 100% a classic mechanic, but Bards doing almost every mob in the zone? Not so much.

P99 is a very, very good emulation. It gets so many mechanics, either perfectly correct, or very close. People who know much more about these mechanics, people like Teppler and all the truly great researchers, have carefully examined the classic research and done their best to make things classic here.

But if something is WILDLY different here, and common sense won't let you explain it away with "people were dumb" ... again, I think the guy from 99 wouldn't say "you're so much smarter than me", he'd say "this isn't the EQ I know."

Please post some kind of proof.

You have spent a lot of time formulating your vision in the most humble and eloquent way possible, in every thread you could grasp at the topic.

Without anything to back it up.

A long winded, polite beggar spammer, is still a spammer.

Perhaps you can make another thread to express your finds and feels?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please post some kind of proof.

You have spent a lot of time formulating your vision in the most humble and eloquent way possible.

Without anything to back it up.

A long winded, polite beggar spammer, is still a spammer.

Perhaps you can make another thread to express your finds and feels?

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

[Man0warr]

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

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

I remember the best/most feared players on Rallos Zek in 1999 being Enchanters. There was one, Rigamortiz?, who was legendary for soloing Ghoul Lord area at 50.

Not to mention how busted they were in PvP with Charm/Fear/Whirl working on PCs.

[derpcake2]

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

Please, find me a player from 1999 (not Project 1999) who remembers Enchanters being the best DPS.

This isn't how it works.

You want staff to change things, you provide the proof in order for them to do so.

[Frostback]

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

I'm saying our delta is Enchanters going from being ranked one of the worst classes in the game DPS-wise, to the uncontroversial best here. That's a very large delta on the right side of the equation.

On the left you have different variables like say: time/player knowledge (A), internet connection speed (B), and differences between emulated mechanics and live ones (C).

What I keep repeating is very simple: A + B does not add up to that amazingly huge delta vs. live. You can divide A and B into however many subvariables you want, and altogether they might account for a delta of 4, maybe 5 classes, eg. Enchanters formerly being the 6th-best DPS on live, but here they're the 2nd-best.

But from bottom to top, only because of A and B? I just find that a difficult idea to swallow: I think there's got to be a C.

Being ranked best or worst in a class is a popularity vote that averages player ability and knowledge. Enchanters in classic eq were capable of out damaging other classes with the use of charm, and there are many reasons for the current rise in popularity to play the class.

Your A+B are vastly different than classic eq in 1999, which is why you're seeing the variance in class popularity. Keep searching for the differences between emulated mechanics and live ones, it's an interesting subject. I believe those differences are small or insignificant.

In Kael there are a lot of NPCs that can be charmed that are significantly more powerful than any pet. Some folks were using this combination of bug and situation to make encounters much more trivial than they were intended to be.

Kael Charming Bug - Aug 7th, 2001

[loramin]

Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This isn't how it works.

You want staff to change things, you provide the proof in order for them to do so.

Both the staff and I want classic EQ, and whether I'm make a logical or evidence-based argument, either way I'm arguing for "more classicness".

Look, lots of people, much more knowledgeable and harder working than me, have done their best to recreate the classic mechanics. I don't know as much as them, so I can't say what might be off about that recreation.

All I know is that in any video game ... let's say you make an "ice ball throwing" class. People who pick that class are going to want to throw ice balls.

Even if I never played that game, if I read that ten years ago ice-ball-throwers actually threw rocks and not ice because rocks worked better ... but in some recreation of that game everyone actually throws ice ... I don't have to be an expert in that game's mechanics to see the emulation isn't right. The only way it could possibly make sense is if there was a clear and strong factor preventing people from throwing ice balls before which got removed and wasn't part of the games mechanics (eg. bad coloring made it impossible to see where your ice was going, but modern monitors make that no longer an issue).

While factors like less info ("No youtube"), or "no items to make it a little easier" surely contributed, they aren't clear and strong enough factors. They're not "my ice balls used to not work and now they do", so they don't explain why we have all these ice balls.

[Cen]

Would I not be misunderstood to not say I don't want my classic EQ to be more classic then all of your classic EQs, but I don't want it to be as classic as classic was in the classic sense.

It's pretty simple if you try not to not think about it.

You have been mezmerised.

[Erati]

ice balls

OP was ab mage pets...what is happening

[bum3]

The majority of players aren't forum nerds or rule lawyers. Enchanters mezzed because it was important to do so over charm dps. And enchanters don't have the mana pool to charm and mez pre-40ish. And since the majority of the populations weren't over 40 let alone max lvl before kunark, most couldn't charm and mez at the same time. If you had a perfect setup group killing safe stuff, sure. But let's face it.. tanks were rare and are rare and a shammy tanking in 40s isn't that safe. Charming was a lot more common in kunark and very common in Velious. But then content was a easier and gear was fantastic.