Spells: Enchanter Mesmerize does mem wipe too frequently

[azxten]

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

You should really search the forums before making a post:

Old mem blur and Mez Post

Then when you do that get a real test going (in that post someone did 96 Mez casts to see if they were close to what was expected) and actually post a log that shows what you say it does. You are making an assumption that because it is giving it's aggro message again that it was blurred. Maybe that is correct and maybe it isn't, but you haven't proved that here and it could just as easily be a side effect of the mob being mez'd rather than blurred.

Once you have proven that what you say is happening is actually happening - i.e. 100% blur rate with a large sample size (not the 12 casts you have in your log) - then actually work out the math given your stats, the mobs level and the spells "bonus" to the mem blur chance (in this case 1%) and see if it lines up with what is expected.

If you still think this calculation is wrong then you need in era evidence with specific mob levels and specific CHA stats and a decent enough sample size to show that the calculation currently being used is incorrect. I mean maybe if you get enough in era posts then you won't need all of that, but you have to do better than this garbage for evidence.

That thread has no logs, a 404 link, and an out of era dev quote that can no longer be found. The "96 tests" is a claim with no log which verifies out of era math that seems wrong. I already told you I proved the aggro message indicates blur by using hide. There is no evidence to support that CHA impacts mesmerize mem blur success rate or that mob level matters. Let's ask ourselves a very simple question....

The player is given a percentage bonus based on level, lower is better. < 17, bonus = 100, > 53 bonus = 25.

This seems to be the "dev quote" which can no longer be viewed. My question though is were they talking about mem blur or mesmerize mem blur chance?

If you get a 100% success chance to mem blur any mob below level 17 using Mesmerize why would the EQ devs have created a level 12 spell called Memory Blur? The only utility this spell would have is to eventually be better at mem blur success rate after you were fighting mobs that are level 17+ and really it would only have significant difference after 20+. It seems likely that math is related to memory blur spells but NOT the Mesmerize spell's mem blur component. It makes zero sense that they would give you a level 4 spell that has 100% mem blur success rate and then a level 12 spell that offers a higher success rate that is useless until you're higher level.

In classic people used the Memory Blur spell to kill steal mobs. No one was going around casting the level 4 mez spell to kill steal but apparently it had a ~100% success rate making it more efficient?

The level 4 mez spell, and all classic mez spells, never mem blurred mobs at any kind of significant rate. Certainly not ~100% success rate at level 30.

[cubiczar]

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

The level 4 mez spell, and all classic mez spells, never mem blurred mobs at any kind of significant rate. Certainly not ~100% success rate at level 30.

Prove it. Seriously man do your research and bring evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong, what I am saying is you haven't done any actual research and you have provided no evidence. Do the work or don't make a report. All of your posts are like this, lots of feels but no evidence.

Also you said that you proved it but you didn't, you used hide one time not every time. If you want good logs then do it right, cast invis con the mob then re-mez. More work? Yes, but it's better proof of what you are saying and relies on no assumptions. Again I'm not saying you are wrong just that you didn't bring the evidence you thought you did.

[azxten]

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

Prove it. Seriously man do your research and bring evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong, what I am saying is you haven't done any actual research and you have provided no evidence. Do the work or don't make a report. All of your posts are like this, lots of feels but no evidence.

Also you said that you proved it but you didn't, you used hide one time not every time. If you want good logs then do it right, cast invis con the mob then re-mez. More work? Yes, but it's better proof of what you are saying and relies on no assumptions. Again I'm not saying you are wrong just that you didn't bring the evidence you thought you did.

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

[cubiczar]

That thread has no logs, a 404 link, and an out of era dev quote that can no longer be found. The "96 tests" is a claim with no log which verifies out of era math that seems wrong. I already told you I proved the aggro message indicates blur by using hide. There is no evidence to support that CHA impacts mesmerize mem blur success rate or that mob level matters. Let's ask ourselves a very simple question....

That thread has no logs, has no evidence (well it has more than you it had a dev quote that used to work at least) and nothing got changed... see the point here?

Also you don't seem to get the point of the 96 tests, that was someone that thought the chance to blur was lower than what the poster was saying the calculation was, did the testing and proved to themselves there was no issue. So there was no need to post the evidence because they didn't think there needed to be a change.

You on the other hand DO think that something needs to change, therefore YOU need to bring evidence to prove that what is currently in game is wrong. In general the devs have made the game work in a certain way based on something, if there is an issue with that they want evidence showing there is a problem. So prove it, otherwise it's sorta pointless to post (unless Dolalin gets interested and does the work for you).

[cubiczar]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

Feels aren't evidence, logic isn't evidence... do some work man. There are lots of things that don't make sense in this game, but it doesn't prove they weren't classic.

[DMN]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

Good lord, man. Memory blue causes ZERO hate and CANNOT be resisted. Some mobs are also totally immune to mesmerize, on top of just being able to resist it.

[Brocode]

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

The most obvious "evidence" is what I just mentioned. Why would the devs give Enchanter a spell at level 12 that costs more mana for zero benefit over an existing spell?

Is there ANYTHING an Enchanter could do with level 12 Mem Blur that isn't done better by level 4 Mez at the level they get it? Is there any other spell in EQ that is like this? Some spells may offer questionable benefits vs mana and such but I don't think there is a single instance of an EQ spell being given that is worse than a lower level spell in all possible ways until you're 30+ levels higher than when you get the spell?

have you looked at some gear that give AGI to casters? why would a dev do it.

Bring proof to the game or go post your rant in RNF, because it seems more RNF than a BUG per say.

[azxten]

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

Feels aren't evidence, logic isn't evidence... do some work man. There are lots of things that don't make sense in this game, but it doesn't prove they weren't classic.

The problem with P99 is when players are asked to prove something that is almost impossible to prove but is obviously overpowered and questionably classic. A mechanic exists on P99 that is overpowered and then the ask is that we're supposed to prove it wasn't overpowered. Yet there is no evidence because this situation never existed. No one ever talked about Mez and it's mem blur component because it wasn't overpowered and didn't work this way. It's like if you had SoW have a 5% chance to make you move 10% faster than it normally would. Almost everyone would acknowledge this wasn't a thing but how are you supposed to prove it? The justification is always that there may be some hidden code that made it work this way and it's not just the spell data. Of course you can't find anyone talking about this because this wasn't something anyone discussed because it didn't work that way.

Where are the logs to prove SoW didn't sometimes make you move faster? Where are the discussions refuting it? Dev posts? None of it exists because it never happened so there is no evidence to disprove it. The evidence is the lack of evidence. Where are all the old Enchanter guides that mention using level 4 mez as a good mem blur alternative? Why do they always say it had a small chance to mem blur if they mention it at all? Why are there so many in era posts about mez, lull, and mem blur as a means to drop aggro? If mez was near 100% no one ever thought to mention you don't need to do all this extra work?

All you can find is some evidence that there was a "small chance" to mem blur from mez. Yet if you post actual logs showing it's at 100% at level 30 it's not enough. Well, the small chance must be based on your level and once you're level 50 THEN it will be a small chance of only 30-40%. Ridiculous. Honestly I'm kind of just going to give up on Enchanter.

Enchanter pets have too high HP (proven), channeling is way too successful on P99 (proven), charm was so buggy/unreliable as to be usless in classic and most of Kunark (proven). The list goes on but Enchanter just keeps on being ridiculously non-classicly overpowered while other classes like Necro and Bard were nerfed for being overpowered in spite of classic mechanics.

Enchanter did not have 100% mem blur to level 30+ from a level 4 spell. Anyone who is being honest knows this is true. It never happened. It is widely "proven" already because as I said there are a ton of in era references to mesmerize having a "small chance" to mem blur not anything close to 100% let alone 50%.

Again....

MULTIPLE IN ERA SOURCES STATE MESMERIZE HAS A SMALL CHANCE OF MEM BLUR, I JUST POSTED A LOG OF 100% SUCCESS AT LEVEL 30. THIS IS NOT A SMALL CHANCE. THERE IS YOUR PROOF IT IS BROKEN AND NOT CLASSIC. NOT EVEN THE MATH IN THE LINKED THREAD INDICATES IT SHOULD BE THIS SUCCESSFUL.

KNOWN CLASSIC MECHANICS LIKE AE KITING AND PET ATTACK SPEED FROM WEAPONS WERE NERFED DUE TO BEING OVERPOWERED. ENCHANTER DESERVES THE SAME GIVEN IT NOW HAS AT LEAST 3-5 KNOWN NON-CLASSIC MECHANICS WITH EVIDENCE AND SEVERAL MORE QUESTIONABLE ONES.

You can pick either option. Enchanter is obviously broken given the evidence presented or Enchanter is obviously overpowered and needs a nerf same as some other "OP" classes that were non-classically nerfed. The only other option is that Enchanter will not be addressed because it is being protected as a preferred class. Which is it?

[azxten]

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

have you looked at some gear that give AGI to casters? why would a dev do it.

Bring proof to the game or go post your rant in RNF, because it seems more RNF than a BUG per say.

What is the point in providing proof honestly? Enchanter already has several proven bugs that makes it overpowered which aren't being fixed. If this was proven it would just be added to the stack and ignored.

[Jibartik]

after playing as many and as much level 60 enchanter as I and many others have here, I can tell you this much: when I say I feel a difference I am 100% correct.