Mage pet nerf 100% bot now....

[Saisu]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So they’re not a reliable source of info, but apparently posts from random players 21-22 years ago (that are frequently contradicted by random posts from that time frame that say different things) are reliable according to anyone who is grasping at straws trying to find evidence to get charm nerfed lol

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm only stating TLPs are not reliable (which is easily proven due to the mishmash of old/new code spanning over decades). Old posts from players 20+ years ago can also be not reliable. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Sabin76]

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

this - imagine telling someone theyre so wrong when theyre so right [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean, you're both kind of right?

The top slot is "completely reset", while the others are "partially reset". By "partially reset", I mean that you can start casting immediately (the reset part), but if the cast time is less than the CD for that spell, then it won't fire (the partially part).

[Erati]

Originally Posted by Sabin76 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean, you're both kind of right?

The top slot is "completely reset", while the others are "partially reset". By "partially reset", I mean that you can start casting immediately (the reset part), but if the cast time is less than the CD for that spell, then it won't fire (the partially part).

thank you

On live it completely reset all the gems which was my initial point that got side tracked by the confusing graphical change. My entire premise was that all the P99 spell slots should act like the top slot but they dont, only the top slot does the 'complete reset' as you say.

[Izmael]

n/t

[Zuranthium]

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

Mages were hot garbage at launch.

They had no researchable pets above 29, their pets did not wield weapons, and did not cast any spells except for the air pet invis. There was a bug where their pets would *run away* from anything that conned yellow or above. They would refuse to attack willowisps unless they physically hit you. Pet pathing was awful. Pets would attack other players in your group if hit physically or by an aoe. Pets did not double attack in their offhand without a weapon, and since mages couldn't give their pets weapons, they just didn't quad, ever, until January 2000. Burnout was a dot that slowly killed your pet.

However, melee were such trash and mana regen was so hard to get that mages were still wanted once they got their level 40(?) pets because the 30hp/tick out of combat regen was godly. Lower Guk groups only wanted pet classes not melee.

Your 2nd paragraph contradicts your 1st paragraph, which is inaccurate anyway.

Mage pets without Dual-wielding were still doing lots of damage compared to Vanilla-era Melee classes, and the Fire pet did cast damage shield in the early days; the extra in-combat pet spells that were added a bit later just made the pets that much stronger. The issue of pets attacking party members was not a big deal, every decent Mage created hot button pet commands, and the pathing was generally manageable or not an issue.

Having less higher level pets was irrelevant for most of the playerbase, because barely anyone got above Level 35 by the time they were put in the game anyway. There was a HUGE wall at Level 30 back then for the playerbase, the first hell level, and Level 35 was even tougher because of the availability/difficulty of things to exp on.

[xmaerx]

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

Except when it comes to charm.

Everyone knows charm wasn't half as widely used in classic as it is on this server, and yet no one seems to be surfacing any research to try and get it fixed (or if they are, the staff seems to be ignoring it).

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

[cd288]

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

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

Good point on the GCD reset aspect.

And you’re correct much of the “evidence” (besides channeling being way easier which is true but is not unique to enchanters and as I understand it is a client issue not a P99 issue) is old forum posts that are also contradicted by other posts (we even have an enchanter guide from back in the day on the P99 wiki that says charm is their most powerful tool). The problem is people only pick the forum posts that support what they want to see happen and then say the staff ignores evidence.

[loramin]

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

Because "Hits for 70 damage" versus "Hits for 58 damage" is quantifiable and objective.

It's hard to find encapsulated break rates on something like charm, or crit fail rates on something like pacify, or blur rates on Mesmerize because it's all subjective, and people are dumb, were dumb, and didn't post a whole lot of accurate testing. They did, however, complain about damage often, hence those posts.

"My pet broke so much tonight! It was like.. twice as often as it will be on P99 20 years from now!" -Exists, somewhere, definitely.

Will reiterate: A lot of the things that make enchanters OP are meta-gaming borderlined exploits. A pet is FAR, FAR harder to recapture without a GCD reset, and far less useful without being able to paci/blur it.

Exactly! So look, if:

A) the whole point of this place is to reproduce classic

B) we have a mechanic where no one knows exactly how it was on live (ie. what exactly the classic mechanic was)

C) we have behavior here which is clearly different from classic (Druids, Enchanters and Necros all playing differently than they did on live, contradicting point A .... which, again, is the entire point of this place)

... then maybe it would make sense to try tweaking that mechanic, to try and make things closer to classic.

But to be clear, I'm not saying "let's change the charm failure rate from 10% of the time to 50%"; that would be unclassic! I'm saying "let's change it to 15%, and see if this place looks closer to live afterward".

[reznor_]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

stealing this

[Scalem]

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

Exactly! So look, if:

A) the whole point of this place is to reproduce classic

B) we have a mechanic where no one knows exactly how it was on live (ie. what exactly the classic mechanic was)

C) we have behavior here which is clearly different from classic (Druids, Enchanters and Necros all playing differently than they did on live, contradicting point A .... which, again, is the entire point of this place)

... then maybe it would make sense to try tweaking that mechanic, to try and make things closer to classic.

But to be clear, I'm not saying "let's change the charm failure rate from 10% of the time to 50%"; that would be unclassic! I'm saying "let's change it to 15%, and see if this place looks closer to live afterward".

Almost all behavior here is different from classic, what a silly argument.